IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
|
|
- Reginald Freeman
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 No. 74/99 (R)] Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar 3. Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Palamau at Daltonganj 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Daltonganj 5. Rajendra Mishra 6. Hari Kishore Tiwary... Respondents [In both cases] For the Petitioners For the State For the Respondent No. 5 For the Respondent No. 6 : M/s Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, Amit Kumar Tiwari and Prasant Kumar Singh, Advocates : G. P. II : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : Mr. C. S. Pandey, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR 14/ Aggrieved by order dated in Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue whereby, order dated passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in L.C. Appeal No. 01 and 02 of and order dated in L.C. Case No of passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daltonganj have been affirmed, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.
2 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent no. 6 executed two sale deeds being sale deed no dated , registered on in favour of the petitioner Urmila Devi [C.W. J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R)] and sale deed no dated , registered on in favour of the petitioners Pushpa Devi and Urmila Devi [C.W. J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R)]. The respondent no. 5 filed an application dated under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 claiming right of pre emption and the same was registered as L.C. Case No of Vide order dated the L.C. Case No of was allowed in favour of the respondent no. 5 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order has been dismissed vide order dated Contending that it would be evident from the document that the claim of the respondent no. 5 as a co sharer and as an adjoining raiyat is not established and the pre emptorrespondent no.5 made partial claim of pre emption which is not maintainable in law and he has, in fact, disputed title of the vendor of the petitioners in a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which is also not permissible, the order dated was challenged however, Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 were also dismissed erroneously.
3 3 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 stating that his claim is based on two sale deeds being sale deed no. 940 dated , registered on and sale deed no dated , registered on The respondent no. 5 claimed that he is a co sharer and an adjoining raiyat of most of the plots comprised in both the sale deeds. The petitioners are not co sharer/adjoining raiyat. The village map and a rough sketch have been produced to indicate that the respondent no. 5 is an adjoining raiyat of all the vended plots. The pre emptor respondent no. 5 has not claimed himself an adjacent raiyat with respect to the land which has been vended in favour of the petitioner Urmila Devi by the respondent no. 6 through sale deed for plot no. 470 and plot no The gift deed allegedly executed on has purposely been executed to defeat the right of pre emption to the pre emptor respondent no Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Relying on a decision in Smt. Priyambada Devi and Another Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna & Others, reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 662, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the finding with respect to the gift deed being a farzi transaction is not sustainable in law. The preemptor moved an application dated in which there was no allegation of the gift deed being a sham and forged document however, the learned Additional Collector as well as the learned
4 4 Deputy Collector have recorded a finding that gift deed is a sham and farzi document and the said finding has been erroneously affirmed by the Revisional Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the right of pre emption can be claimed for the entire property comprised in the sale deed and not with respect to a part of property in the sale deed. From the application dated it would appear that the pre emptor has claimed right of pre emption only with respect to a part of property and thus, the application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was not maintainable and the Deputy Collector erroneously entertained the application of the pre emptor respondent no. 5 and the order passed by the Deputy Collector has been wrongly affirmed in appeal as well as in revision. Since this is a question of law arising from the facts of the case, which has been erroneously decided by the authorities, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petitions and interfere with the erroneous finding on the question of law. He relies on decision in Ram Chandra Srivastava and Others, Vs. Parsidh Narain Singh and Others reported in AIR 1971 PATNA 302 and Smt. Sudama Devi and others v. Rajendra Singh and others reported in AIR 1973 PATNA 199 to contend that an application for pre emption cannot be entertained and allowed, only with respect to a part of property.
5 5 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has contended that the right conferred under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is a statutory right and if the conditions prescribed under the said provision are fulfilled, the pre emtptor is entitled for an order of pre emtption. In the present case it is not in dispute that the application was filed by the respondent no. 5 within the prescribed statutory time period and all other conditions have been fulfilled by the respondent no. 5 and therefore, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheoji Mahto and Others Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue & Others reported in 1997 BBCJ 93 (SC), the Deputy Collector has rightly allowed the application dated claiming a right of pre emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, He has also relied on decision in Shyam Sunder & Anr. Vs. Ram Kumar and Anr., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 24. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioners had no title with respect to a part of the land and since in a pre emtption proceeding, the respondent no. 5 could not have asked the Court to decide the title of the vendor of the petitioners, the claim for pre emption was rightly made only with respect to land comprised in both the sale deeds to which the respondent no. 6 has acquired right, title and interest. It is further submitted that the provision
6 6 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is a technical provision and the pre emptor is required to prefer an application within 90 days of the execution of the sale deed. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the execution of gift deed just one month prior to the statutory period of 90 days was a sham transaction. The matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and therefore, this Court would not interfere with finding of the fact and the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to examine the nature of right of pre emtpion. It has been consistently held by judicial pronouncements that a right of pre emption is a weak right. In Indira Bai Vs. Nand Kishore reported in (1990)4 SCC 668 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 5....In Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh this Court while approving the classic judgment of Mahmood, J. in Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah, that the right of preemption was simply a right of substitution observed that, courts have not looked upon this right with great favour, presumably, for the reason that it operated as a clog on the right of the owner to alienate his property. In Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi, this Court again while repelling the
7 7 claim that the vendor and vendee by accepting price and transferring possession without registration of sale deed adopted subterfuge to defeat the right of pre emption observed that, there were no equities in favour of a preemptor, whose sole object is to disturb a valid transaction by virtue of the rights created in him by statute. To defeat the law of pre emption by any legitimate means is not fraud on the part of either the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of pre emption by all lawful means The record of the case would disclose that in the application dated , the pre emptor has not alleged that the gift deed dated was sham and farzi document. The pre emptor has claimed the right of pre emption stating as under: This claim of pre emption is confined only to the lands which really belong to the transferor the petitioner through this case does not claim the right of pre emption with respect to such plot which has been inserted in the sale deed or some illegal purposes to escape the consequence of claim of pre emption, where with the transferor has no concerned and which has been entered in schedule. 10. It would also appear from the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners that the claim of the pre emptor being a co sharer or adjoining raiyat has been specifically disputed by the petitioners. From the record of the case it does not appear that in the proceeding in the courts below the pre emptor filed any document establishing himself as a co sharer. It appears that a
8 8 contention was raised with respect to genuineness of the gift deed dated however, from the orders impugned before this Court, I do not find any discussion with respect to the evidence led by the pre emptor to substantiate such a contention. The orders dated , and order dated do not disclose the foundation for recording a finding that the gift deed dated is sham and farzi document. In Smt. Priyambada Devi and Another Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna & Others, reported in 1985 PLJR 662, this Court has held that in case where a specific plea is taken with respect to genuineness of the gift deed, a finding can be recorded by the Court that the gift deed was a forged document. However, in the present case no inference can be drawn that the gift deed was executed with a view to frustrate the right of pre emption. As noticed above, in the present case a specific plea was not taken by the pre emptor in application dated and the orders impugned in the present proceeding also do not disclose any cogent reason for arriving at such conclusion. In these facts, I am of the opinion that the courts below have seriously erred in law in recording a finding that the gift deed was a farzi document and therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below is liable to be interfered with. 11. Coming to the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that a claim of pre emption cannot be maintained with respect to only a part of the property in the sale deed, I find that in
9 9 Ram Chandra Srivastava and Others Vs. Parsidh Narain Singh and Others, reported in AIR 1971 PATNA 302, it has been held: Both under the general law of preemption and the provision of Section 16(3), the conveyance has to be made on the same terms and conditions as are contained in the document of transfer. To permit the petitioners to obtain a reconveyance with respect to only.03 acre in plot No. 738 covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 3 would amount to striking a new bargain for the parties by splitting up the terms and conditions contained in the sale deed of respondent No. 3. This is certainly not contemplated by sub section (3) of Section 16 of the Act. It is manifest that in respect of the land covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 3 the petitioners must claim the right of reconveyance with regard to the whole of the property to which it relates or to none at all. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated whereby, the operation of orders dated , and were stayed by this Court. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that he has instructions to say that the respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property in question, no material has been produced to establish that the respondent no. 5 was delivered possession at any point of time. It is not in dispute that after the execution of sale deeds, the petitioners
10 10 were put in possession. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that once an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is preferred which fulfills all the pre condition, the application must be allowed. This contention is liable to be rejected. In a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, it is to be first found that the pre emtpor has established the right of pre emption on the basis of his being co sharer or as an adjoining raiyat. In the present proceeding, the petitioners have specifically denied the claim made by the pre emptor that he is a co sharer. Moreover, the pre emptor respondent no. 5 himself has claimed that he is a co sharer and an adjoining raiyat with respect to most of the plots. It is not the claim of the pre emptor that he is a co sharer or an adjoining raiyat with respect to the entire property in question. Moreover, it is a matter of record that the pre emptor did not produce any document to establish that he is a co sharer and therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below that the respondent no. 5 is a co sharer, is perverse. 14. I find that the learned courts below seriously erred in recording findings which are not based on evidence, either oral or documentary. The courts below have also failed to notice the nature
11 11 of right of pre emption. In the result, orders dated , and are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Satyarthy/N.A.F.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 511 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L. P. A. No. 511 of 2009 1.State of Bihar 2.Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna Appellants Versus 1.Ravindra Prasad Singh 2.State of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 6094 of 2012 Laxmi Narain Bhagat... Petitioner Versus Naresh Prasad & others..... Respondents For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar For the Respondents
More informationW.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
BY COURT: 1 W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India) Parmanand Pandey & Anr.. Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.....
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 520 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 520 of 2005 Fr. Mariya Packian S.J. Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 3336 of 2015 M/S CORPORATE ISPAT ALLOYS LIMITED, HAVING ITS UNIT AT TOTATALWADI, P.O. BURUDIH, DISTRICT SARAIKELA KHARSAWAN, JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3482 of 2014 Balwinder Singh, son of late Bahadur Singh Nagi, Resident of Katras Road, PS Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad s/o Sardar Rawal Singh, R/o Gurunanakpur,
More informationCorrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellant(s) versus Ashwani Kumar and others Respondent(s)
More informationMr. Sunil Singh, Advocate : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Sr. S.C. I
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3788 of 2015 1. Mira Sinha, wife of late Amrendra Kumar 2. Jaydeep Kumar, son of late Amrendra Kumar 3. Avhinav Amresh, son of late Amrendra Kumar
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT VERSUS DIDAR SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENTS N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 MariyamTirkey Petitioner (in WPS No. 506/13) Sudarshan Khakha Petitioner (in
More informationW.P.(S) No. 960 of 2005 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
1 W.P.(S) No. 960 of 2005 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] 1. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha 2. Dhirendra Mishra...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (L) No of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (L) No. 4484 of 2008 Birendra Kumar Singh Petitioner -V e r s u s- Secretary, Foundary Forge Co-operative Society Ltd., Dhurwa, Ranchi CORAM: - HON BLE MR.
More informationPRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9844-9846 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3966 of 2013 Anita Devi, wife of Late Basudeo Yadav, permanent resident of village Ratabhiar, P.O. & P.S. Gande, Giridih...... Petitioner Versus 1.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, Reserved on: January 27, Pronounced on: February 22, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 Reserved on: January 27, 2012 Pronounced on: February 22, 2012 W.P.(C) No. 2047/2011 & CM No.4371/2011 JAI PAL AND ORS....
More informationWITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1692 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1693 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1691 OF 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.27550 of 2012) RAM KUMAR GIJROYA DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 05.07.2011 Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No. 18758/2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER...Appellants Through: Mr.Ved Prakash
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No of 2013)
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.25771 of 2013) URMILA DEVI AND OTHERS... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE DEITY, MANDIR
More informationIn The High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisionl Jurisdiction Appellate Side. CO 1275 of Smt. Nirmala Pandey -Vs.- Smt. Gouri Raha & Ors.
In The High Court At Calcutta Civil Revisionl Jurisdiction Appellate Side CO 1275 of 2013 Smt. Nirmala Pandey -Vs.- Smt. Gouri Raha & Ors. Coram For the Petitioner : The Hon ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 7504 of 2013 M/s Narayani Fuels Private Limited through its Director, Dhanbad Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab National Bank through its Chairman, New
More informationPRESENT: Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J. VERSUS
SUPREME COURT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR [Appellate Jurisdiction] PRESENT: Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J. Civil Appeal No.218 of 2018 (PLA filed on 10.08.2018) Muhammad Khan s/o
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO._1575 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) No.1135/2016)
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO._1575 OF 2019 (Arising from SLP(C) No.1135/2016) Tanu Ram Bora Appellant Versus Promod Ch. Das (D) through Lrs. &
More informationW.P. (C) No of 2005
-1- W.P. (C) No. 1992 of 2005 WITH W.P. (C) No. 3105 of 2007 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] By Court: Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Electrical
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No of 2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 3455 of 2013 M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad... Petitioner Versus Sri Arun Krishna Rao Hazare, Ex General Manager (HRD), Bharat Coking Coal
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2015 + CM(M) 1155/2015 PURAN CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr.Arun Kumar and Mr.Udit
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.273 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.273 of 2015 Basant @ Bashant Harlalka, son of Sri Jagdish Harlalka Resident of Village Manoharpur, P.O.& P.S. Manoharpur District Singhbhum (West)......
More informationIN 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 informationDate of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc Appeal No. 224 of 2011 Abdul Hamid and others... Appellants State of Jharkhand and others Versus Respondents Coram : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the
More information* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. 1. Sh. Hari Prakash Sharma (deceased) S/o Late Shri Kehar Singh Sharma, Through Legal Heirs.
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) Nos. 1201/2010 & CM No. 16773/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 17 th September, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 09 th November, 2010 1. Sh. Hari Prakash Sharma (deceased)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3725-3726 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of2011] H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors...
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9118-9119 OF 2010 Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar
More information1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1861/2009 DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala with Ms. Hrishika Pandit. versus HARSH VASANT & ANR.... Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF J HARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(C) No of Rajendra Tudu 2. Ramesh Turi 3. Prafulla Chandra Das...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF J HARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 7472 of 2013 1. Rajendra Tudu 2. Ramesh Turi 3. Prafulla Chandra Das..... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Ministry
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos of 2005 Decided On: Narasamma and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Hon'ble Judg
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos. 568-571 of 2005 Decided On: 19.03.2009 Narasamma and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Tarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ. Tarun
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (ELECTION OF MEMBERS) RULES, 1974 Judgment Reserved on: 17.12.2012 Judgment Delivered on: 20.12.2012 W.P.(C) 1074/2012
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: WP(C) 687/2015 and CM No.1222/2015 VERSUS
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2015 + WP(C) 687/2015 and CM No.1222/2015 GILEAD PHARMASSET, LLC... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR... RESPONDENTS Advocates
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No(s) OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 3122 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No. 34559 of 2016) Pooran Singh Appellant(s) VERSUS Dhaniram (since dead)
More informationSecond Appeal No of 2001 (Old (defective) No. 15 of 1995)
Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 1259 of 2001 (Old (defective) No. 15 of 1995) 1. Daulat Ram (since deceased) S/o Dhama Ram 1/1 Data Ram Balodi 1/2 Vimal
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....
More informationSURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DATE OF DECISION : 7th February, 2014 LA.APP. 632/2011 & CM No. 17689/2013 (for stay) SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS.... Appellants
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010 Decided on: 9th August, 2011. DEEPAK GARG Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Advocate.... Petitioner versus
More information$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1519/2003. versus. % Date of Decision: 14 th March, 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1519/2003 AMRIT KUMARI Through versus... Petitioner Ms.Amita Malhotra, Advocate. ASST. HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ORS.... Respondents Through Mr.Dev
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(C) No of 2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3629 of 2014 Deoghar Mill (Deoghar Rice Mill) Jhausagarhi, Deoghar through its Managing Partner & Anr... Petitioners Union of India & Ors....... Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT. LPA No.658 of 2011 & CM No /2011 VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT & CM No. 1509/2011 Reserved on: 12 th December, 2011. Pronounced On: 7 th March, 2012. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Through: Mr. Arun Birbal,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 298 of 2013 ------- Md. Rizwan Akhtar son of Late Md. Suleman, resident of Ahmad Lane, Azad Basti, Gumla, P.O, P.S. and District: Gumla... Petitioner
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2005 J U D G M E N T
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5514 OF 2005 Ganeshi (D) through LRs & Ors... Appellants -versus- Ashok & Anr... Respondents J U D G M E N T Markandey
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 + 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5903 OF Smt. Sudama Devi & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5903 OF 2012 Smt. Sudama Devi & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS Vijay Nath Gupta & Anr. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5554 of 2007 1. Debiswar Soren 2. Chandu Soren 3. Balish Soren 4. Ram Lal Hembram 5. Gomeshwar Hembram Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19640/2011 (stay) Decided on: 22nd February, 2012 SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.
More informationLakshmi & Anr vs Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009
Supreme Court of India Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026
More informationIN 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$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8200/2011 RAJENDER SINGH... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 90/2007 SH. NARAIN SINGH & ORS...Appellants Through: Ms. Sukhda Dhamiza, Advocate along with
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.2631 OF State of Bihar & Ors.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.2631 OF 2009 State of Bihar & Ors. Petitioners Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Respondent ALTAMAS KABIR, J. J
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5222 of 2012 1 Nirbhay Kr. Shahabadi & another...petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & others Respondents -------- Coram: THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No of Bokaro Steel Workers Union 2. N.M.D.C. Mines Workers' Union Petitioners
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3996 of 2006 1. Bokaro Steel Workers Union 2. N.M.D.C. Mines Workers' Union Petitioners Versus Steel Authority of India Limited and others Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Dated of Reserve: July 21, Date of Order : September 05, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Dated of Reserve: July 21, 2008 Date of Order : September 05, 2008 CM(M) No.819/2007 Rajiv Sud...Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. 249/2006. Date of Decision: 8th December, versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CO.PET. 249/2006 Date of Decision: 8th December, 2011 M/S ARROMA CHEMICALS... Petitioner Through Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate versus
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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Judgment Delivered on: 14.02.2011 RSA No.39/2005 & CM No.1847/2005 SHRI NARAYAN SHAMNANI
More informationRailway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, being aggrieved by the judgment. dated , passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI --- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 324 of 2013 --- Sri Paramanand Vimal, S/o Sri Sukhdeo Singh, Resident of Village Raunia, P.O. Raunia, P.S. Khijarsaray, District-Gaya,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,
More information% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on: November 27, 2015 % W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. versus
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE. CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No /2009(Stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 10941/2009(Stay) Reserved on: 17th February, 2012 Decided on: 1st March, 2012 YASHPAL KUMAR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY W.P (C ) No. 16041/2006 Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006 Judgment delivered on: November 8, 2006 B. MURALI KRISHNAN.... Petitioner
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P. (C.) No /2009 & CM. No.15749/2009. Date of Decision :
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No. 13870/2009 & CM. No.15749/2009 Date of Decision :- 17.02.2010 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & anr.. Petitioners Through Ms. Ruchi
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC...Appellant VERSUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOS.251-256 OF 2015 A. RAJAGOPALAN ETC....Appellant VERSUS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT & ORS. & ETC....Respondents
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) RSA No. 149 of 2006 APPELLANTS: 1. On the death of
More informationSURESH PRASAD alias HARI KISHAN... Appellant Through: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Mr.S.K.Rout, Ms.Sukhda Dhamija and Mr.B.K.Routray, Advocates
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT ; LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Reserved on : February 08, 2012 Pronounced on : March 14, 2012 LA.APP.421/2010 (VILLAGE MASOODABAD) SURESH PRASAD alias HARI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: January 03, 2007 WP(C) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Order Reserved on: 29.11.2006 Date of Decision: January 03, 2007 WP(C) No.6327/1999 Harpal... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate
More informationCIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9550 of 2015 GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY SAVITRI MOHAN & ORS...
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5372 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.9550 of 2015 GREATER NOIDA IND. DEV. AUTHORITY APPELLANT VERSUS SAVITRI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED
More information$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.3909 of 2012) JACKY.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4453 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.3909 of 2012) JACKY. APPELLANT VERSUS TINY @ ANTONY & ORS..RESPONDENTS J UD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.No.2556/2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.PRAKASH S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No of 2013 with W.P. (T) No of 2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 1686 of 2013 with W.P. (T) No. 1687 of 2013 M/s. The Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd, Mining Lessee, through Krishna Kant Dubey, Orissa. Versus Petitioner
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment Reserved on: 11 th November 2009 Judgment Delivered on:18 th November 2009
% * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 11 th November 2009 Judgment Delivered on:18 th November 2009 + CRL.A. No.575/2008 and Crl.M.A.8045/2008 SHAILENDRA SWARUP versus Through:...
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Rahmat Ali, S/o Md. Hafizatddin 2. Smti. Nazma Rahman, W/o Md. Rahmat Ali, Both are residents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 267 of The State of Jharkhand and another Vrs.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 267 of 2012 The State of Jharkhand and another Vrs. Shri Sanjay Kumar and others ------... Appellants CORAM: HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR.
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32. + W.P.(C) No. 332 of 2010 M/S UCB FARCHIM SA... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Sukhdev,
More informationCORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J U D G M E N T
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) No.807 of 2014 Reserved on: 09.07.2014 Pronounced on:16.09.2014 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE... Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person with Ms. Suman
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT. Reserved on: November 21, Pronounced on: December 05, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES ACT Reserved on: November 21, 2011 Pronounced on: December 05, 2011 W.P.(C) No.3521/2008 AHUJA REFRIGERATION P.LTD. Through:... PETITIONER
More informationARMED 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on: 15.03.2011 Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2011 RSA No.243/2006 & CM No.10268/2006 SHRI.D.V. SINGH & ANR...Appellants
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 567 of 2017 JANHIT MANCH & ANR...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS WITH
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 567 of 2017 JANHIT MANCH & ANR...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS....RESPONDENT(S) WITH
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3166 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34719 of 2011) Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami & Anr. Appellant(s) :Versus.:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 Reserved on : Decided on: FAO(OS) 89/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 Reserved on : 07.02.2013 Decided on: 13.03.2013 FAO(OS) 89/2009 M/S. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD..... Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos /2011. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of Judgment: 22.03.2011 RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos. 5887-88/2011 MANOJ GUPTA Through: Mr.P.N.Dham, Advocate...Appellant
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014 Pronounced on: 03.02.2015 PRINCE KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Tarun Kumar Tiwari, Mr.Mukesh Sukhija, Ms.Rupali
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7 th January, W.P.(C) 5472/2014, CM Nos /2014, 12873/2015, 16579/2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 7 th January, 2016 + W.P.(C) 5472/2014, CM Nos. 10868-69/2014, 12873/2015, 16579/2015 ASHFAQUE ANSARI... Petitioner Through: Mr. V. Shekhar,
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Reserved on: % Date of Decision: WP(C) No.7084 of 2010
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.11.2013 % Date of Decision: 28.11.2013 + WP(C) No.7084 of 2010 PARAS NATURAL SPRING WATER PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Adv.... Petitioner
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF FLAT. W.P.(C) No.5180/2011. Decided on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF FLAT W.P.(C) No.5180/2011 Decided on: 16.01.2012 IN THE MATTER OF PITAMBER DUTT Through : Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.... Petitioner versus
More information