IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No."

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv.... Plaintiff Versus BRIJ MOHAN GUPTA & ORS. Through Mr. R.L. Kohli, Adv. for Defendants No.2 to 5... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed by defendants No.2 to 5 under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 151 CPC. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following reliefs: (a) Decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that plaintiff is entitled for whole of the 1/3rd share of Late Lal Chand amounting to Rs.5,67,33,333.33/- (Rupees Five crores Sixty Seven lacs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and Thirty Three Paisa only) out of highest bid amount for Shop No.45-B and Shop No.67-A, Khan Market altogether totaling to Rs.17,02,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen crores Two lacs only); and/or (b) Decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that for whole of the 1/3rd share of Late Lal Chand i.e. Rs.5,67,33,333.33/- (Rupees Five crores Sixty Seven lacs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and Thirty Three Paisa only) be paid to the plaintiff in case, any claim from any of the other five legal heirs of Late Lal Chand is raised for their share the same may be rejected; and/or (c) Decree of permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from

2 claiming any money out of the 1/3rd share of Late Lal Chand amounting to Rs.5,67,33,333.33/- (Rupees Five crores Sixty Seven lacs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and Thirty Three Paisa only) out of highest bid amount for Shop No.45-B and Shop No.67-A, Khan Market altogether totaling to Rs.17,02,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen crores Two lacs only); and/or (d) Decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that plaintiff is owner of 3rd Floor of Residential property No.208, Sarya Niketen, New Delhi and directing the defendant No.2 to revert back the possession of the same to the plaintiff; and/or (e) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (f) Any other relief, which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2 & 3 are the sons and defendant No.4 is the daughter, of Late Shri Lal Chand. Smt. Maha Devi who was initially impleaded in the suit as defendant No.1 was the widow of Late Shri Lal Chand who expired on The plaintiff and the defendants are the legal heirs and successors of the estate of Late Shri Lal Chand. 4. The three sons of late Shri Rati Ram, namely, Shri Lal Chand, Shri Ram Chander and Shri Moti Ram were the joint owners of two shops bearing Nos.67-B and 45-B, Khan Market, New Delhi and accordingly, they had 1/3rd share each in the above-mentioned two shops. In the suit filed by Shri Lal Chand against Shri Ram Chander and Shri Moti Ram, being Suit No.721/1980, a decree for partition was passed by this Court on wherein, it was held that the two shops of Khan Market were jointly owned by the then plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 having 1/3rd share each. 5. The appeal against the decree passed in Suit No.721/1980 was heard and decided by the Division Bench of this Court on In para-5 of the said judgment, it was held, the two shops cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds, we think it just and proper that Shop No.67-A and 45-B, Khan Market, New Delhi should be sold through public auction. All the parties to these proceedings including their Legal Representatives shall be entitled to bid in the public auction. In the last para of the said judgment, it

3 was held that the three branches i.e. legal heirs of Ram Chander, Moti Ram and legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand shall bear the expenses of publication and auction etc. equally. The said appeal was, thus, disposed of on The plaintiff herein filed a review application against the said judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench, being R.P. No.517 of 2010 in FAO(OS) No.8 of 2004, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated Therefore, the plaintiff filed an Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated In view of the order passed by the Division Bench on , the auction was held. Thereafter, the possession of the two shops was handed over to the auction purchaser and it was so recorded in the order dated passed by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) No.8 of 2004 that all the legal heirs and the owners made the statement before the Court that they were willing to assist the auction purchaser in filing an application before L&DO for the purposes of carrying out mutation in their favour and thereafter, for transfer of the property in favour of the auction purchaser. It was also recorded in the order that one of the LRs of Late Shri Lal Chand, i.e. Sh. Surender Gupta was not present before the Court at the time of passing of the order on It appears from the record that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on which was lying under objection and later on, the suit as well as the interim application were listed before the Court on when it was contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have no right in 1/3rd share of the amount which is lying deposited with the Registrar General of this Court after the said auction. The Court issued the summons in the main suit and notice in the interim application and also passed an ex parte order that the Registrar General would not disburse the 1/3rd share of the auction money in favour of either of the parties to the present suit. 10. In para-6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that there are six legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand, namely, (i) Mrs. Mahadevi Gupta (wife of Lal Chand, the then defendant No.1), (ii) Shri Brij Mohan Gupta, defendant No.2, (iii) Shri Ashok Gupta, defendant No.3, (iv) Shri Anand Prakash Gupta, defendant No.4, (v) Shri Surendra Gupta, plaintiff herein (all sons of

4 Late Shri Lal Chand) and (vi) Mrs. Sushma Goyal (married daughter of Late Shri Lal Chand, defendant No.5). They had already entered into a family settlement through the Relinquishment Deed dated As per the said family settlement, the division/distribution of commercial and residential properties of Late Shri Lal Chand was finally settled among his above said heirs. The plaintiff relied upon few clauses of the said Deed dated , the details of which are mentioned in para-7 of the plaint, the same are reproduced here as under:- (5) All the four sons are occupying individually separate floors, ground floor by Mr. Anand Prakash Gupta, first floor by Ashok Gupta, 2nd floor by Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta and 3rd Floor by Surendra Kumar Gupta. (6) Now a situation has arisen for settlement with regard to ownership and occupancy of the shop situated at 67-B, Khan Market, New Delhi and the residential property situated at 208, Satya Niketan, New Delhi Mr. Anand Prakash Gupta and Mr. Surendra Kumar Gupta do not want to continue the business jointly and in partnership. Therefore, the parties to this Deed have agreed and decided that Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta shall get the shop to the exclusion of all other legal heirs who are relinquishing the rights/shares forever in the said property and in consideration of the same Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta shall vacate and surrender the possession of the 3rd floor of property bearing No.208, Satya Niketan, New Delhi and relinquish his share/right whatsoever and forever in the entire said residential property. (7) The eldest son Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta just in order to put an end to the dispute/controversy has agreed to acquire the said 3rd floor of the residential property and distribute its mutually agreed cost/price to all other legal heirs. It has been mutually agreed that major share will go to Mr. Anand Prakash Gupta who is relinquishing his share/right in the business and who was entirely dependent on it. The second major share shall go to Sh. Ashok Gupta who is serving in a private organization in Delhi. The 3rd share as mutually agreed shall go to Smt. Mahadevi Gupta for her upkeep and maintenance. The balance left after distribution shall be retained by Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta. In consideration of all others legal heirs being properly, provided the said S/S Anand Prakash Gupta, Ashok Gupta and Smt. Mahadevi Gupta shall relinquish for ever their rights/shares in the entire 3rd Floor premises bearing No.208, Sarya Niketen, New Delhi in favour of Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta who shall then become the exclusive owner of the entire said 3rd Floor of the said property. (8) After this settlement Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta shall become exclusive owner and in possession of shop bearing No.67-B, Khan Market,

5 New Delhi Sh. Anand Prakash Gupta shall become the exclusive owner of the entire ground floor, Sh. Ashok Gupta of the entire first floor, and Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta shall become the exclusive owner of the entire 2nd floor and 3rd floor of the residential property bearing No.208, Sarya Niketan, New Delhi (9) Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta having become the owner of shop No.67- B, Khan Market, New Delhi will also take along with it all the assets and liabilities of the shop, stocks in trade, credits and all liabilities. All the pending and in fact any matter relating to that shop like, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Municipal Tax, House Tax, Advocate/Accountant work fees insurance of the shop dealing with bank etc. will be sorted by Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta alone. Mr. Radhey Shyam Mittal, 1720, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi is the Income Tax & Sales Tax advocate since inception of the firm and Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta shall consult him or anybody else with respect to all Tax matters. (10) The shop bearing No.67-B, Khan Market, New Delhi is the subject matter of litigation and a case is pending between legal heirs of Late Lal Chand Gupta on the one hand and S/S Ram Chander and Moti Ram (Uncles) on the other hand. The case is pending in the year 1982 on the request of parties and without prejudice to the decision of the Court. The Advocate is Bawa Shiv Charan Singh R/o 29, Babar Lane, New Delhi Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta shall now handle the aforesaid pending case through the advocate and whatever be the outcome/decision of the High Court, it shall be binding only on Sh. Surendra Kumar Gupta and shall not in any way effect the rights/shares of the other parties in the residential property as settled by this Deed 11. The contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that the said Relinquishment Deed was acted upon by the legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand in the year 1994 itself and the possession of the commercial as well as residential properties before and after the above-mentioned Relinquishment Deed dated is as follows: Sl. No. Property Before After Shop No.67-B, S. Kr. Gupta Khan Market (Plaintiff) 2. Residential Property

6 No.208, Sarya Niketen, New Delhi Ground Floor Anand Gupta Anand Gupta (Def. No.4) (Def. No.4) 1st Floor Ashok Gupta Ashok Gupta (Def. No.3) (Def. No.3) 2nd Floor B.M.Gupta B.M.Gupta (Def. No.2) (Def. No.2) 3rd Floor S. Kr. Gupta B.M.Gupta (Plaintiff) (Def. No.2) The plaintiff submits that each and every term and condition of the above-mentioned Relinquishment Deed has been acted upon by the legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand Gupta and respective possessions have been taken by the parties in view thereof. Therefore, the plaintiff is now entitled to the 1/3rd share of the total amount of Late Shri Lal Chand Gupta which comes to Rs.5,67,33,333.33/ Upon service, the defendants filed the written statement as well as the present application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. 14. The following are the main contentions of the defendants in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : (i) The suit filed by the plaintiff regarding the relief of declaration and injunction is barred by limitation. (ii) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by res-judicata under Section 11 CPC read with Explanation IV CPC. 15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It is a matter of fact that the judgment dated was passed by the learned Single Judge wherein a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the suit property, i.e. two shops bearing No.67-B and 45-B, Khan Market, New Delhi was passed declaring the then plaintiff and then defendants No.1 & 2, three brothers i.e. his father and two uncles, Sh. Lal Chand, Sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Moti Ram respectively as the joint owners of the suit property having 1/3rd share each. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner to suggest the ways and means to divide the above said two properties and the

7 business carried out from the shop bearing No.67-B, Khan Market, New Delhi (the real shop No. is 67-B, though it is mentioned at various places as 67-A). All the disputes between the brothers in Suit No.721/1980 and 197A/1979 were disposed of. The said judgment was challenged before the Division Bench and when the appeals were disposed of along with the pending applications, it was clearly mentioned that there was an opposition in the appeals from Surendra Kumar Gupta, the plaintiff herein, who is one of the legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand. It was recorded that neither Surendra Kumar Gupta, nor Late Shri Lal Chand has appealed against the judgment of preliminary decree which was passed on It was also recorded that the brothers of Surendra Kumar Gupta as well as his sister concurred in the sale of the property through auction. 16. It is a matter of record that after disposing of the appeal on , the plaintiff herein filed the review petition, i.e. R.P. No.517/2010 in FAO(OS) No.8/2004 which was also dismissed for the following reasons:- The grounds for review are that there has been failure to disclose material facts and that the family settlement had not been brought to the notice of the Court. A perusal of the order sought to be reviewed discloses that the Court was mindful of the interest of the present applicant. There is no error apparent on the face of the order. Review petition stands dismissed. 17. So, it is the admitted position that the decree passed by this Court on was not challenged by the plaintiff, till the time properties had already been auctioned. In a way, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff after the expiry of more than 8 years and 4 months. The plaintiff is now referring the family settlement/ Relinquishment Deed executed by the other legal heirs of Late Shri Lal Chand in favour of the plaintiff. The factum of family settlement/ Relinquishment Deed has been denied by the defendants. 18. The case of the defendants No. 2 to 5 is that the family settlement has never been acted upon. Counsel appearing on their behalf submits that incase, the plaintiff was aggrieved by the decree already passed on , he should have challenged the decree passed in 2003 by referring the family settlement, by filing of suit within limitation for enforcement of clauses as referred by him now. As the present suit was filed after the expiry of eight years, the same is hopelessly barred by

8 limitation as under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is 3 years when the rights are accrued. 19. I concur with the arguments of Mr. Kohli and it appears on the face of it that the suit has been filed after the expiry of 8 years and 4 months from the date of passing of the decree. No doubt, when there are two views about the objection of limitation, then it becomes a mixed question of law and fact, however, on a plain reading of the plaint, if court finds that on the face of it, the same is time barred by limitation, then, the benefit of limitation goes to the party who raised the objection. In the present case, it was clearly recorded in the order passed by the Division Bench that the family settlement was never brought to the notice of the Court when the Court decided the appeals on The Special Leave Petition against the said order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on The said findings of Division Bench also fortified from the conduct of the plaintiff i.e. on one hand the plaintiff is relying upon an unregistered document of the family settlement which reads the property at Surya Niketan at 3rd Floor goes to his brother and on the other hand, he has made the prayer in the suit that a decree be passed declaring him to be the owner of the 3rd Floor of the property at Surya Niketan, New Delhi, which shows that the alleged family settlement dated , if any, was not to be acted upon, otherwise why the plaintiff would have claimed the declaration to this effect in the present suit. 20. It is the admitted position that the family settlement dated is an unregistered document and was not relied upon by the plaintiff in the earlier pending litigation till the time appeals were decided by the Division Bench. The said document has seen light of the day after the decision on appeal on , review was filed by him. The plaintiff has not filed the original family settlement before the Court alongwith plaint. There is no contention of the plaintiff that prior to execution of the alleged family settlement, there was any oral agreement between the parties regarding partition as alleged by the plaintiff. 21. The similar aspect has been dealt by the Supreme Court in the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and others, reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 292, the relevant para of which reads as under:- 12. Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose

9 of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon so that there be no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the parties reduce the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and, where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess. The document Exhibit 3 does not appear to be of such a nature. It merely records the statements which the three brothers made, each referring to others as brothers and referring to the properties as joint property. In fact the appellant, in his statement, referred to respondents 1 and 2 as two brother co-partners; and the last paragraph said: "We, the three brothers, having agreed over the above statement and having made our own statements in the presence of the Panch called by us, and signed and kept a copy of each of this document as proof of it." The document would serve the purpose of proof or evidence of what had been decided between the brothers. It was not the basis of their rights in any form over the property which each brother had agreed to enjoy to the exclusion of the others. In substance it records what had already been decided by the parties. We may mention that the appellant and respondent No. 1, even under this arrangement, were to enjoy the property in suit jointly and it is this agreement of theirs at the time which has later given rise to the present litigation between the two. The document, to our mind, is nothing but a memorandum of what had taken place and, therefore, is not a document which would require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 22. As a matter of fact, in the present case the plaintiff wants to seek a declaration by enforcing the document of alleged family settlement, that too after 17 years which is barred by limitation as the same was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. His rights in relation to this alleged document again accrued when the decree for partition was filed in the year But, the plaintiff maintained his silence for more than eight years. He has only filed the present suit when the auction as per the order of Division Bench took place. Thus, it appears that now the plaintiff lacks of cause of action as the suit becomes barred by limitation. 23. The other aspect of the matter is that the suit is otherwise barred by law, on the principle of res-judicata under Section 11 read with Explanation-IV CPC. The said provisions are reproduced here as under:-

10 Section 11 Res judicata No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation-IV: Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. 24. It appears from the pleadings in the suit and the documents filed, as well as from the application filed by the defendants that the decree for partition in respect of the two shops No.67-B & 45-B, Khan Market, New Delhi was passed on and it was held that the said two shops were jointly owned by the three brothers, namely, Shri Lal Chand, Shri Ram Chander and Shri Moti Ram. The plaintiff is one of the legal representatives of Late Shri Lal Chand. The Division Bench after hearing the submissions of the parties has clearly held in para-5 of the judgment that since the two shops could not be partitioned by metes and bounds, therefore, the directions were given that the said shops be sold in public auction. It was also recorded that both the parties to the proceedings including the legal representatives would be entitled to bid in the public auction. Therefore, it is clear that the rights of the suit property have already been determined. The plaintiff was fully aware of the said proceedings and even before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff raised objection. Not only that, the plaintiff herein filed the review petition against the said judgment and decree being RP No.517/2010 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated by stating that the factum of family settlement was not brought to the knowledge of the Bench. The said judgment passed by the Division Bench was also challenged by the plaintiff herein. But, the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated It appears from the above-mentioned factual position that the issues in the matter, which were raised by the parties, have been directly dealt with, and substantially and finally decided by the Court. Explanation IV is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, there is force in the submissions of Mr. Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

11 defendants No.2 to 5. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 26. Under these circumstances, the present application filed by the defendants is allowed. Accordingly, the plaint of the suit filed by the plaintiff is rejected. The ex-parte injunction order granted on is vacated. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

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. + 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 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. 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

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 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 : 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

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

- 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

*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

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

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 : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 MRS. VEENA SETH Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate... Plaintiff Versus

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 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

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

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92 No. DCI/ILMAC/CI/2011/ I-t ~ 7- 'L - J'D. Dated: 81 ft I J Minutes of the meetina of the Industrial

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: 10.12.2013 Pronounced on: 15.01.2014 RFA (OS) 14/2013 CAP. VIJAY KUMAR TREHAN.Appellant Through: Sh. Anil Amrit with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Writ Petition (Civil) No of 2008 and CM No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Writ Petition (Civil) No of 2008 and CM No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7230 of 2008 and CM No.13974 of 2008 Decided on: October 03, 2008 1. The Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

More information

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD been settled. It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has On

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 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

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

Suit No. : 570/15 13/01/2016. Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant.

Suit No. : 570/15 13/01/2016. Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant. Suit No. : 570/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant. Vakalatnama filed by the counsel for the defendant alongwith WS. Copy given. Now put up for replication / documents / admission denial

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

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 1 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with subsections (4), (10) and (12) of section

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13361 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29621 of 2014) Rakesh Mohindra Anita Beri and others versus Appellant (s)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 WP(C) No.14332/2004 Pronounced on : 14.03.2008 Sanjay Kumar Jha...

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

IN 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. 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

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. % 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 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 213/Hyd/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Asst.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, FAO (OS) No. 270/2004. RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, FAO (OS) No. 270/2004. RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 FAO (OS) No. 270/2004 RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008 DATE OF DECISION : January 16, 2009 RADHIKA NARANG and ORS....

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 SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI. W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012. Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI. W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012. Decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012 IN THE MATTER OF Decided on: 13.03.2012 SMT.OM WATI Through: Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate Petitioner

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF 2008 % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009 # KAVITA GAMBHIR.Appellant! Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. Versus $ HARI CHAND GAMBHIR & ANR.

More information

IN 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. 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 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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate....

More information

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No / 2016

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No / 2016 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6592 / 2016 1. Rajnikant S/o Shri Netrapal Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o B-237, Karani Nagar, Lalgarh,

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

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 KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY. REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY BETWEEN: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1809 OF 2013 Ms. Sandra Lesley Ann

More information

CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad. Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff. None for defendant.

CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad. Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff. None for defendant. CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff None for defendant. Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07,

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 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. MAC App. No. 453 of Judgment reserved on:25th November, Judgment delivered on: 2nd December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MAC App. No. 453 of Judgment reserved on:25th November, Judgment delivered on: 2nd December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. Smt. Rani W/o Late Shri Jai Kumar Mittal SUBJECT : Motor Vehicle Act,1988 MAC App. No. 453 of 2008 Judgment reserved on:25th November, 2008 Judgment delivered

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT 1956 Judgment delivered on: 03.01.2013 WP(C) 668/2012 AND CM No.27/2013 (for directions) & CM No.9851/2012 (for directions) M/S. KLEN & MARSHALLS

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

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

THE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE CHILD AND ADOLESCENT (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT

More information

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 SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 MOHAN LAL & ANR.... Petitioner Through : Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with

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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.865/2000 DIVINE UNITED ORGANISATION Petitioner Through: Mr.

More information

THE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 2014

THE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 2014 1 AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA Bill No. VIII of 14 36 of 19. 24 of 198. THE WAQF PROPERTIES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS), BILL, 14 A BILL to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12581 OF 2015) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR....APPELLANT(S)

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

$~ * 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

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

KNOWLEDGE REPONERE. (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017)

KNOWLEDGE REPONERE. (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017) KNOWLEDGE REPONERE (A Weekly Bulletin) (06 to 10, 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November, 2017) All rights reserved. No part of this Publication may be translated or copied in any form or by any means without

More information

TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL HIRER OF TELEPHONES

TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL HIRER OF TELEPHONES TRANSFER OF TELEPHONE CONNECTION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL HIRER OF TELEPHONES WHOM TO APPLY APPLY TO THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER (CENTRAL) MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED, NEW DELHI-110050

More information

LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976

LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50. Act 52 of 1976 MARRIED PERSONS ACT CHAPTER 45:50 Act 52 of 1976 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 20.. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 2 Chap. 45:50 Married Persons Note on Subsidiary Legislation

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

* 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

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 : 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

THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Statement of Objects and Reasons: Sections: CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1.

THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Statement of Objects and Reasons: Sections: CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. 1 THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1958. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Statement of Objects and Reasons: Sections: CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Application

More information

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

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. 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. 4099 of 2013 Decided on 26.9.2013

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

REPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of

REPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN

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

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

PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA ARBITRATION ACT NO. 11 OF 1995

PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA ARBITRATION ACT NO. 11 OF 1995 PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA ARBITRATION ACT NO. 11 OF 1995 (Certified on 30 th June-1995) Arbitration Act. No. 11 of 1995 1 (Certified on 30 th June-1995) L.D. O.10/93

More information

outside and saw that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting

outside and saw that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal Nos. 786-789 of 2003 Decided On: 28.05.2009 State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Mukundakam Sharma and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. Mukundakam Sharma,

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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) Pronounced on: December 11, 2015 M/S IMS MERCANTILES PVT. LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta with Mr.Saurabh

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

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

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 By CA Sagar S.Tilak 26 th February 2017 Background Benami Transactions Prohibition Act 1988 Amended Act 2016 9 Sections 71 Sections Acquisition

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 1021 OF 2016 M/s Andrew Telecommunications India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. N-2, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcette, Goa-403 722, India.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-00349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND CHAN PERSAD DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For the Claimant:

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

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTIONS THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II 3. Definitions of domestic

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COFEPOSA. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1484 of Judgment reserved on: November 20, 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COFEPOSA. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1484 of Judgment reserved on: November 20, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COFEPOSA Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1484 of 2006 Judgment reserved on: November 20, 2006 Judgment delivered on: December 01, 2006 Suman Aggarwal W/o Shri

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 188/2008 F.HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 188/2008 F.HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. & ANR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 188/2008 F.HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. & ANR versus Date of decision: April 24 th 2009... Appellants Through Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Parag. P.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO. AMENDED TITLE OF THE PLANT PURSUANT TO ORDER DT 16.9.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO. B-69 OF

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

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

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

COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003

COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003 COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003 IN THE MATTER OF:...Applicant Through Shri P.D.P Deo counsel for the Applicant.

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

Grievances No.K/DOS/015/874 of and No. K/DOS/016/875 of

Grievances No.K/DOS/015/874 of and No. K/DOS/016/875 of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kalyan Zone Behind Tejashree", Jahangir Meherwanji Road, Kalyan (West) 421301 Ph 2210707, Fax 2210707, E-mail : cgrfkalyan@mahadiscom.in Date of Grievance : 08/10/2013

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

THE ADMINISTRATORS-GENERAL ACT, 1963

THE ADMINISTRATORS-GENERAL ACT, 1963 THE ADMINISTRATORS-GENERAL ACT, 1963 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II 3. Appointment of Administrator-General.

More information

TENDER FOR INTERIOR WORKS AT BANK OF INDIA, JAUNPUR (ALTERNATE PREMISES), Distt.JAUNPUR

TENDER FOR INTERIOR WORKS AT BANK OF INDIA, JAUNPUR (ALTERNATE PREMISES), Distt.JAUNPUR Ref. No.: ZO:CSD:PP:2013-14: Date: 13/08/2013 TENDER FOR INTERIOR WORKS AT BANK OF INDIA, JAUNPUR (ALTERNATE PREMISES), Distt.JAUNPUR Sealed item rate tenders are invited for Interior works on behalf of

More information