III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS.

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS."

Transcription

1 III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. Respondents CRP No of 2013 Decided on ORDER 1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dt in I.A.No.150 of 2011 in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 in OS. No. 31 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners are defendants in the said suit. The suit was filed by the respondents restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with their alleged possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs. The court below in I.A. No. 119 of 2010 granted ad-interim injunction order in favour of the respondents on The respondents filed I.A. No.150/2011 against petitioners seeking police aid alleging that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were set ex-parte in the suit; that they had not filed written statement; and petitioners 2 and 4 are contesting the suit; that inspite of the ad-interim injunction order dt , the petitioners and their family members were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property; that on and , they trespassed into the land along with coolies, cut barbed wire fencing, broke certain pillars and threatened the respondents with dire consequences; and that they also tried to plough the plaint schedule property, while abusing the respondents. The respondents sought directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Dammapeta to give police-aid for implementation of the court orders. 5. No counter-affidavit was filed to this I.A. by the petitioners. 6. After waiting for a reasonable amount of time on , the Court below granted police-aid to the respondents on the ground that the petitioners were interfering with the possession of the respondents over the plaint schedule property inspite of passing of an injunction order by the Court and also on the ground that no counter was filed by the petitioners. 7. Aggrieved thereby, this Revision is filed. 8. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that unless sufficient material is filed by the respondents, grant of police protection during the pendency of the suit on the basis of adinterim injunction is not sustainable and merely because the petitioners had not filed any counter, instead of adjudicating the issue basing on the evidence on record, the court below erred in granting police-aid. He also placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Polavarapu Nagamani and Ors. v. Parchuri koteshwara Rao and Ors., 2010 (2) ALD 41 (DB). 9. In the said decision, it was held: "24. Of late, this Court has noticed that the number of suits for injunctions (classified as

2 title suits) in all the Courts is on increase. It is not without truth to say that more often than not frivolous suits of injunction are filed only to bring the defendants around the plaintiff's view and accept some via-media arrangement to avoid long drawn, expensive and time consuming proceedings in the Courts, during which the defendants would not be able to enjoy the property with peace. In all such cases, ordinarily, urgent motion is moved before the civil court, an order of ex-parte injunction is obtained and waiting for a period of fortnight or so, immediately application is moved under section 151 of CPC seeking police protection. Instances are not rare where defendants are subjected to harassment after obtaining order of injunction. The Courts in India have repeatedly held that the police have no role in civil adjudication, and therefore, the courts should be very cautious and vigilance not to introduce police intervention in civil adjudication in indirect manner at the instance of a clever and resourceful plaintiffs. In view of this, we direct all the Civil Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by the party obtaining an order of injunction seeking police protection. For the guidance of all the civil courts, we hold and lay down as under: (i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police protection would not lie. The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution petition under Order-XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order-XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court. (ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to exercise of power under section 94 [e] or Section 151 of CPC, the facts alleged or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner. (iii) If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad-interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the court has power to order police protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and liberty, and rights of the opposite party. (iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction or alleged breach,. Disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities. Be it noted, as held by Supreme Court in Chottu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, in all cases of contempt the plea should be proved applying the very high standard of proof and not mere affidavits or selfserving statements of the party seeking the intervention of the Court. 10. Relying on point No.1 above, the counsel for the petitioners would contend that the only remedy available to a party for violation of the order of injunction is to file an application under Order-21, Rule 32 or application under Order-39, Rule-2 [A] of CPC and respondents cannot file application for police protection. 11. Thus, in the above decision, the Division Bench of this Court held that when an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of

3 breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police protection. But if he alleges that the said order has been violated, an application for police protection would not lie. 12. In Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, (2007) 12 SCC 201, the Supreme Court declared: "14. Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A question may arise whether such an application can be entertained by the court when specific provision under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the form of mandatory order in the exercise of power under the said order. Therefore to decide this aspect of the matter, let us consider the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 reads as under: "151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the code is not res integra now. 17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 while dealing with the power of the court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. 18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. 19. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly dispossesses the other, the court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged." (emphasis supplied) 13. In P.R. Muralidharan and Others v. Swamy Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, AIR 1962 SC 527 the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider whether a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could grant the relief of police protection. It held that in

4 a given case, a person may be entitled to police protection having regard to the threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil court, and if court is satisfied that the authorities have failed to perform their duties. It held that there would be no such entitlement for protection of the writ petitioner's rights in question (to property or to an office and discharging of certain functions) when the writ petitioner's rights to do so are open to question as manifested by the pleadings themselves. It held that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding and that the jurisdiction of a civil court being wide and plenary, the High Court cannot grant such a relief in a writ proceeding. It held : "17. A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order." So in this decision also, the Apex Court held that police protection may be granted in writ jurisdiction when a Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court granting an injunction in favor of the applicant and was deliberately flouting it. 14. It appears that the Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani (supra) did not notice the above two decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that even in cases where there is a violation of an injunction order in a suit (as opposed to a situation where only a threat of violation exists), orders of police protection may be granted. No doubt it is necessary that the rights of the parties should be determined either finally in the suit or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner. Therefore, the view of the Division Bench in Polavarapu Nagamani (supra) in so far as it held that an application for police protection is not maintainable

5 if there is a violation of an injunction order passed in a suit has to be held to be per incuriam. 15. So a party, who obtained temporary injunction orders, and is complaining of violation of such orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for Contempt of Court, but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151 CPC from the Civil Court. With great respect to the Division Bench, I do not agree with it's view that if a party were to be allowed to seek police protection under Section 151 CPC to implement an interim injunction order granted in his favour, it would render Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 otiose. 16. Of course, even the Division Bench accepted that the relief of police protection may be granted in a situation where an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of order of injunction, subject to proof. I also agree with the view of the Division Bench that when a petition is filed seeking police protection, such order cannot be passed in a routine manner and a high degree of proof is necessary. 17. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari v. SHO, PS, Santoshnagar, AIR 1982 AP 394 (DB), no authority in the State, Revenue or Police, can ignore the finding of the Civil Court or refuse to take steps to see that the order of the Civil Court is implemented and the party, in whose favour there is an order of the Civil Court should get all help to maintain the law and order and the other party cannot be allowed to contravene the injunction order and create law and order problem. No doubt, these observations were made in the context of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or direction to police to enforce the orders of the Civil Court to provide protection in furtherance of an order of injunction, but in my opinion, the said observations equally apply to a situation where a party approaches a Civil Court for police protection having obtained an interlocutory order for temporary injunction. 18. In Smt. Nirabai J. Patil v. Narayan D. Patil, AIR 2004 Bom. 225, the Bombay High Court held: "If Civil Court which has passed the order of temporary injunction takes a view that there is no power vested in the Court to direct the police to grant assistance for enforcing or for implementation of the order of temporary injunction, the very purpose of granting order of temporary injunction may be trust rated in a given case. It is the duty of every police Officer to enforce the law of the land. The duties of police officers are reflected in Section 64 and Section 66 of the Bombay Police Act, In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that "There is no provision for police and for execution of interim order", is totally incorrect. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that he has a power under Section 151 of the said Code to pass the order directing that police help should be made available provided facts of the case warrant passing of such order. 8. As observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the grant of police aid is an extreme step and therefore order for grant of police help or police assistance cannot be made unless the Court is fully convicted about the existence of grave emergency such

6 as apprehension of violence by the persons against whom the order has been passed. It is very difficult to give exhaustive list of circumstances in which the Court can exercise the said power. However, said power is to be exercised with caution and the said power can be exercised only after the Court is fully convinced of existence of grave situation warranting exercise of said power." 19. In N. Karpagam and Others v. P. Deivanaiammal and Others, AIR 2003 Mad. 219, Justice P. Sathasivam, (as His Lordship then was) also held that the Civil Court can give direction to the Police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved party with regard to implementation of the injunction order passed by the Court. His Lordship held : "It is also relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1992 TLNJ 120 (cited supra), wherein after considering the relevant provisions relating to grant of injunction and Section 151 C.P.C. the Bench has concluded that, "In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions under Section 151 of the Code can be issued by the Civil Courts to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court." finally, Their Lordships have concluded that, "In appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power and is indeed under a duty, to issue suitable directions to police officials, as servants of law, to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of the Civil Courts or implementing an order of injunction passed by it." 20. Applying the above principles, it has to be seen whether the Court below was correct in granting police aid to the respondents in IA.No.150/ Admittedly, ad interim injunction orders were granted in favour of respondents on in IA.No.119 of Although a counter affidavit in that IA had been filed by petitioners herein in July, 2010, the said order had not been vacated. 22. IA.No.150 of 2011 was filed by respondents in August, 2011 alleging violation of the ad interim injunction orders. Admittedly, no counter-affidavit was filed by petitioners herein in IA.No.150 of 2011 in spite of several opportunities being given to them. So, the allegations made by the respondents against petitioners in IA.No. 150 of 2011 stood uncontroverted. The respondents had even given police complaints which evoked no response from the police. Even though the order of injunction was passed in IA.No. 119 of 2010 at an interlocutory stage, it was unambiguous and was in force for almost a year and had not been vacated. Therefore, the Court below, after waiting till (almost one year after filing of the IA.No. 150 of 2011), was right in treating that there is no counter on behalf of the petitioners in IA. No. 150 of 2011, that the allegations made therein were not denied. It rightly allowed it, taking notice of the urgency expressed by the respondents and their submission of interference by the petitioners in violation of the injunction order granted by the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the Court below in allowing IA. No. 150 of 2011.

7 23. Even otherwise, no reason is assigned by the petitioners for the delay of almost one year in questioning the order dated in IA.No.150 of 2011 passed by the trial court. I am of the considered opinion that the latches on the part of the petitioners in challenging the said order, is also a factor to be taken into account in denying the relief to them in this revision. Therefore, the CRP is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Revision Petition dismissed.

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5460-5466 OF 2004 MORAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao &

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Supreme Court of India Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3130 of 2002 Special Leave

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.815/2007 % Date of decision: 16 th February, 2010 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura with Ms. Paramjit Benipal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IA No.10795/2011 in CS(OS) 514/2010 STOKELY VAN CAMP INC & ANR... Plaintiff Through Ms.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION I.A Nos. 9341/2011 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & 10119/2012( O.39 R.4 CPC) IN CS(OS) 1409/2011 Reserved on: 12th September, 2013 Decided on:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR BETWEEN W.P. NO.466 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) SRI ANANTHAIAH S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 55

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK. (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK. (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction) THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction) DATED: 13 th NOVEMBER, 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH W.A. NO.122 OF 2014 In the matter of a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014... Sri Kasinath Nayak. Petitioner -Versus- State

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 4071/2013 Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin @ Md. Abdul Rahim, S/o. Late Kuddush Ali @ Kaddus Ali @ Kurdush

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10583-10585 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S). 36057-36059 OF 2016] MUNJA PRAVEEN & ORS. ETC. ETC....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS.17117 & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Sri

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN WRIT APPEAL NO.2828

More information

possession thereof ever since The sale deed dated in favour of plaintiff was created to lay a false claim over the suit property. The p

possession thereof ever since The sale deed dated in favour of plaintiff was created to lay a false claim over the suit property. The p IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2002 Decided On: 22.04.2009 T.K. Mohammed Abubucker (D) Thr. LRs. and Ors. Vs. P.S.M. Ahamed Abdul Khader and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: R.V. Raveendran

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995 Date of Decision : July 14th, 2008. NARAIN SINGH & ANOTHER... Petitioners. Through Mr.

More information

24 Appeals and Revision

24 Appeals and Revision 24 Appeals and Revision The assessee is given a right of appeal by the Act where he feels aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority. However, the assessee has no inherent right of appeal unless

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) -Vs- WP(C) No. 1846/2010 Sri Ram Prakash Sarki, Constable (Since dismissed from

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29765 of 2016) Smt. K.A. Annamma.Appellant(s) VERSUS The Secretary, Cochin

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS FEW POINTS ON LIMITATION TO REMEMBER. Auction Purchase under Order 21 rule 95 CPC

EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS FEW POINTS ON LIMITATION TO REMEMBER. Auction Purchase under Order 21 rule 95 CPC EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS FEW POINTS ON LIMITATION TO REMEMBER For delivery of possession by Court Auction Purchase under Order 21 rule 95 CPC For enforcement of a decree granting Mandatory Injunction under

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284

Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284 Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Supdt. Presidency Jail, Calcutta, (1955) 1 SCR 1284 Hans Muller of Nuremburg Versus Superintendent, Presidency Jail Calcutta and Others Petitioner Respondents (Under Article

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals Madras High Court K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF 2011 Federation of SBI Pensioners Association & Ors....... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors...............

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: 11.03.2011 RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA...Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2008 + Date of Decision: 13 th October, 2009 # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Versus $ SHAUKAT RAI (D)

More information

MANGE RAM BHARDWAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.R.K.Saini, Mr.S.P.Pandey, Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, and Ms.Rashmi Pandey, Advocates VERSUS

MANGE RAM BHARDWAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.R.K.Saini, Mr.S.P.Pandey, Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, and Ms.Rashmi Pandey, Advocates VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Reserved on: May 07, 2012 Pronounced on: May 21, 2012 W.P.(C) No. 515/1989 MANGE RAM

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22.09.2015 Pronounced on: 19.11.2015 + FAO (OS) 131/2012 COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY AND ANR. Appellants Through: Sh. Pravin Anand, Advocate. Versus

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : 14.03.2013 GUPTA AND GUPTA AND ANR Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate.... Petitioners

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 347/2017 % 23 rd August, 2017 ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC.... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Aditya

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION PRESENT: Mr. Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Mr. Justice Md. Shamsul Huda. CIVIL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.W. J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R) with C.W. J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R) Urmila Devi Petitioner [CWJC No. 72/99 (R)] 1. Pushpa Devi 2. Urmila Devi... Petitioners [CWJC

More information

Downloaded From

Downloaded From PART I Preliminary 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. 3. Savings. 4. Specific relief to be granted only for enforcing individual civil rights and not for enforcing penal laws. PART

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/ Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/ Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/2012 + Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014 # LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Amit Sibal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15 PETITIONER: R. N. NANJUNDAPPA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15 PETITIONER: R. N. NANJUNDAPPA http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15 PETITIONER: R. N. NANJUNDAPPA Vs. RESPONDENT: T. THIMMIAH & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT08/12/1971 BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G. CITATION:

More information

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 31.07.2017 Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nava Kumar Kalita, learned Additional Public

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARK. CS(OS) NO. 2577/2008 and I.A. NOS and 15464/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARK. CS(OS) NO. 2577/2008 and I.A. NOS and 15464/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARK CS(OS) NO. 2577/2008 and I.A. NOS. 15433 and 15464/2008 CS(OS) NO. 2646/2008 and I.A. NO. 15647/2008 Date of Decision : 7th January, 2009. GLAXOSMITHKLINE

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH 1. Mr. N. Asangba, Presently serving as Surveyor Grade-II, PHE Central Store, under the establishment

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure Judgment delivered on: 11.07.2008 IA No. 2399/2007 in CS (OS) 383/2007 (u/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC), IA No. 6301/2007 in CS (OS) 383/2007

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Appeal Nos.462, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 25, 166, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223,

More information

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA RESOLUTION

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA RESOLUTION Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC January 22, 2008 THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA RESOLUTION Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Committee

More information

F.M.A. No of 2014 with C.A.N. No of Sk. Rabiul Alam. Versus Dinesh Kumar Goyal and another.

F.M.A. No of 2014 with C.A.N. No of Sk. Rabiul Alam. Versus Dinesh Kumar Goyal and another. Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Present: The Hon'ble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And The Hon'ble Justice Subrata Talukdar F.M.A. No. 2192 of 2014 with C.A.N.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.261 of 2014 Md. Mansoor @ Mansoor Alam @ Manser Nauwa, son of Kalam Nauwa, R/o Wasseypur, P.O. Bhulinagar, P.S. Bank Moare, District Dhanbad.....

More information

Case :- SERVICE BENCH No of Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.

Case :- SERVICE BENCH No of Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J. -1- Court No. - 2 Reserved Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1345 of 2014 Petitioner :- Junaid Ahmad Respondent :- Visitor Interal University Lko./His Excellency The Governor Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh

More information

Powers and Duties of Court Commissioners

Powers and Duties of Court Commissioners Marquette Law Review Volume 1 Issue 4 Volume 1, Issue 4 (1917) Article 4 Powers and Duties of Court Commissioners Max W. Nohl Milwaukee Bar Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr

More information

2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject (a) " creditor" includes a decree- holder;

2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject (a)  creditor includes a decree- holder; THE PRESIDENCY- TOWNS INSOLVENCY ACT, 1909 ACT NO. 3 OF 1909 1 [ 12th March, 1909.] An Act to amend the Law of Insolvency in the Presidency- Towns 2 WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the law relating to

More information

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 108/2015 Date of decision: versus

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 108/2015 Date of decision: versus $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 108/2015 Date of decision: 04.08.2015 GULSHAN SETHI & ORS... Petitioners Through: Ms.Kajal Chandra and Ms.Swati Sinha, Advocates. versus GOVERNMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Reserve: Date of Order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Reserve: Date of Order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Date of Reserve: 27.1..2009 Date of Order: 05.02.2009 OMP No. 36/2009 Competent Investment Limited... Petitioner

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 1 st July, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 1 st July, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1298/1987 % Date of decision: 1 st July, 2010 STATE BANK OF INDIA. Through:... Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate. Versus SH. C.P. KANAK & ANR.. Respondents

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar

More information

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI

KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI KSR & Co Company Secretaries LLP PRACTISING COMPANY SECRETARIES & TRADE MARK AGENTS COIMBATORE & CHENNAI Assuring Assuring Compliances Compliances & Solutions & Solutions Beyond Beyond Challenge Challenge

More information

W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013

W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) A I Z A W L B E N C H :: A I Z A W L W.P. (C) No. 45 of 2013 Sh. J. Vanlalchhuanga, S/o Ralkapliana R/o Ramhlun,

More information

Law on Essential Commodities Act, 1955

Law on Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Law on Essential Commodities Act, 1955. S.S. Upadhyay Legal Advisor to Governor UP, Lucknow Mobile : 9453048988 E-mail : ssupadhyay28@gmail.com 1. Release of Vehicle under E.C. Act, 1955 : Where vehicle

More information

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein.

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein. Supreme Court of India Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 81 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 82 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 Rules Contents Page No. 1. Title 83 2. Definition 83

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B BETWEEN: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009 M.R.ACHUT KUMAR S/O M RAMAKRISHNA

More information

Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Stereo. HCJDA.38. Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. Case No. W.P.No.1671/2014 AN Industries (Private) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan etc Date of hearing 27.10.2016

More information

PROPSED AMENDMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

PROPSED AMENDMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PROPSED AMENDMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE BY MIAN ZAFAR IQBAL KALANAURI * The Civil and Criminal Justice System in Pakistan is confronted today with serious crises of abnormal delays. Delay in litigation

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Indian Succession Act, 1925 LPA No. 198/2008 Reserved on : 12th September, 2008 Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008 AVTAR NARAIN BEHAL Through: Mr.Arvind

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP(C) No. 30 of 2015

THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP(C) No. 30 of 2015 1 THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP(C) No. 30 of 2015 Shri Auxilius Syiem Nongbah ::::::: Petitioner -Vrs- 1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong, represented by its Secretary.

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of 2001 Judgment reserved on: December 16, 2009 % Judgment delivered on: January 11, 2010 Chander Bhan S/o Shri Chhotey Lal R/o Village

More information

(2016) LPELR-41249(CA)

(2016) LPELR-41249(CA) UKATA & ORS v. AKPANOWO & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2016 Suit No: CA/C/195/2013 CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME ONYEKACHI

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HANDBOOK ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AND OFFICE PROCEDURE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HANDBOOK ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AND OFFICE PROCEDURE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HANDBOOK ON PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AND OFFICE PROCEDURE 2017 CONTENTS Page Nos. Chapter I - Preliminary 1-4 1. Seal of the Supreme Court 1 2. Language 1 3. Definition 1 (i) Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.R.P.NO.474/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.R.P.NO.474/2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.R.P.NO.474/2013 BETWEEN: SMT. PREMA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, 2014. RFA 269/2013 GANGADHAR PADHY... Appellant Through: Counsel for the appellant (appearance not given)

More information

2014 PA Super 159 : : : : : : : : :

2014 PA Super 159 : : : : : : : : : 2014 PA Super 159 ASHLEY R. TROUT, Appellant v. PAUL DAVID STRUBE, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1720 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order August 26, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of

More information

5. Petitioners have stated that the Co-operative Housing Societies are mainly two types:

5. Petitioners have stated that the Co-operative Housing Societies are mainly two types: Karnataka High Court Karnataka High Court Equivalent citations: ILR 2004 KAR 1892, 2004 (3) KarLJ 310 Author: V G Gowda Bench: V G Gowda ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioners are the registered

More information

Singhai Lal Chand Jain(Dead) vs Rashtriya Swayam Sewak... on 15 February, 1996

Singhai Lal Chand Jain(Dead) vs Rashtriya Swayam Sewak... on 15 February, 1996 Supreme Court of India Singhai Lal Chand Jain(Dead) vs Rashtriya Swayam Sewak... on 15 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1211, 1996 SCC (3) 149 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER:

More information

THE PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACT, 1988 PART I PART II PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE ASSEMBLY AND ITS OFFICERS

THE PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACT, 1988 PART I PART II PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE ASSEMBLY AND ITS OFFICERS THE PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACT, 1988 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. PART II PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014 DR. ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Adv.... Petitioner versus STATE

More information

Public Duty & Public Law Rights: A study in the light of recent decisions under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

Public Duty & Public Law Rights: A study in the light of recent decisions under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Public Duty & Public Law Rights: A study in the light of recent decisions under Article 226 of Constitution of India. By P.Chandrasekhar, Advocate, Ernakulam. Is Article 226 of the Constitution of India

More information

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010

THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 TO BE INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA CLAUSES THE EDUCATIONAL TRIBUNALS BILL, 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Applicability of Act. 3. Definitions.

More information

India. Neerav Merchant. Majmudar & Partners Mumbai. Law firm bio

India. Neerav Merchant. Majmudar & Partners Mumbai. Law firm bio India Neerav Merchant Majmudar & Partners Mumbai nmerchant@majmudarindia.com Law firm bio 1. What are the current challenges to enforcement of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses? At the outset, in

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. R.F.A.No.1725/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. R.F.A.No.1725/2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL R.F.A.No.1725/2005 BETWEEN: Mrs.Premila Grubb, W/o Mr.Grubb, Aged 46 years,

More information

Decided: March 25, S15G0887. RIVERA v. WASHINGTON. S15G0912. FORSYTH COUNTY v. APPELROUTH et al.

Decided: March 25, S15G0887. RIVERA v. WASHINGTON. S15G0912. FORSYTH COUNTY v. APPELROUTH et al. In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 25, 2016 S15G0887. RIVERA v. WASHINGTON. S15G0912. FORSYTH COUNTY v. APPELROUTH et al. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted certiorari to the Court

More information

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA DIVISION BENCHES

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA DIVISION BENCHES HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171001 No.HHC/Judl./ROSTER/96- Dated: Shimla, the 6 th August, 2014 OFFICE ORDER In supersession of previous Office Orders, Hon ble the Chief Justice has been pleased

More information