IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 NAR SINGH DASS GUPTA... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashwini Mata, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sunil Agarwal and Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS SHRI LAL MAN AND ORS.... Respondents Through: : Mr. R.B.Singh, Adv. for LRs of R-1(a) Mr. S.D.Singh, Mr. Rahul Kr. Singh, Mr. Kamla Prasad and Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Adv. for R-2 and 3. CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing no. C- 11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds. 2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property on by means of a registered sale deed from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Subedar Major Jaswant Singh had purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed on from M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that there was a requirement of safeguarding this property inasmuch as, he was living in Narela, a separate area from where the suit property is situated, and therefore, when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, he was approached by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1/ Sh. Lal Man that in consideration of him being allowed to stay in one room existing in the suit

2 property he would take care of the property and prevent encroachment thereon. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1-sh. Lal Man was engaged in the work of preparing and selling tea in the same area. The further case of the appellant/plaintiff was that when in the year 1989, he visited the suit property it transpired that half of the said plot was being constructed by the defendant no.2/ Sh. M.L.Ram, Advocate. It transpired subsequently that the suit property was purchased by Mrs. Neema Devi/wife of defendant No.2/defendant No.3 from her own brother-in-law, Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram had himself purchased the area of 100 sq. yds out of the total suit property from the defendant No.1/respondent No.1. The appellant/plaintiff therefore, because of unauthorized construction, immediately orally terminated the licence of the defendant No.1 and thereafter filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits. 3. Respondents/defendants contested the suit and filed a common written statement. It was pleaded that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the entire 200 sq. yds inasmuch as he was put into possession of the same by one Sh. Risal Singh who told respondent No.1/defendant No.1 that the suit property belonged to Gaon Sabha and therefore the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 could take possession of the same from Sh. Risal Singh who was said to be in possession. It was further pleaded that the defendant No.1 was in fact in possession of the suit property since the year 1975 i.e. not from the year 1984 as was claimed in the plaint by the appellant/plaintiff. The further case of the defendants/respondents was that the defendant No.1 had sold rights in the 100 sq. yds. of the suit property by means of the documentation of the year 1988 to Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram who was brother of the defendant No.2, and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram thereafter sold the portion of 100 sq. yds. to defendant No.3 who is wife of defendant No.2. It was prayed that the suit for possession and mesne profits be therefore dismissed. 4. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant is in illegal possession thereof as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the description of the suit property has not been property given? If so to what effect? 3. Whether the suit has been property valued for the purposes of court fee? If not, what is the value for that purpose? Onus on parties.

3 4. Whether proper court fee has not been paid on the plaint? If so to that effect? OPD 5. Whether plaint as drafted is not maintainable as alleged if so to what effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties? If so to what effect? 7. Whether the suit plot stands acquired by DDA as alleged? If so to what effect? OPD 8. Deleted. 9. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit plot for the reasons stated in para 4 of the reply on merit of the W.S.? If so to what effect? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any decree for possession as claimed? OPP 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages? If so at what rate, for what period and to what amount? 12. Relief. 5. Trial Court by the impugned judgment has held that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership of the suit property inasmuch as the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. Trial Court has also held that the revenue record of the suit land in favour of the M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. was not established on record. Trial Court also holds that since the mutation of the property was applied for but not pursued, this shows that the appellant/plaintiff was not the owner. Trial Court concluded that since Ex.PW1/5 being the sale deed executed by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh was not proved, there does not arise the question of passing of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff vide the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Before this Court, arguments have been centered around the issue as to whether the appellant/plaintiff is or is not the owner of the suit plot. The appellant/plaintiff relied upon the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and by M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh respectively, house tax record Ex.PW1/12 showing ownership of the appellant/plaintiff, and the other evidences on

4 record. The respondents/defendants in reply, in substance, contended that the document Ex.PW1/5 cannot be said to have been proved either by the appellant/plaintiff who appeared as PW-2 or through the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 who have deposed as being conversant with the signatures of the Directors of the company, M/s. Capital Housing Private Ltd. who had signed the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the Board resolution showing the entitlement to execute the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 has not been filed and therefore, the document Ex.PW1/5 cannot be said to have been validly proved. It is also argued that the document Ex.PW1/1 being the sale deed by which, the appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh also cannot be said to be proved inasmuch as the witnesses to that sale deed ought to have been summoned, but were not. While disputing the transfer of title by means of documents Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/1, in favour of the appellant/plaintiff reliance has been placed upon Sections 66 and 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, On behalf of the respondents reliance is also placed upon certain alleged contradictions between the plaint and the evidence led on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, and details of which will be given by me hereafter. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents/defendants that property tax record exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 shows the year thereof as 1979, though, as per the appellant/plaintiff, the boundary wall with one room on the suit plot was constructed in the year It was also argued that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proof either with respect to the ownership or the termination of licence of the respondent no.1/defendant no In my opinion, the trial Court has completely misdirected itself in dismissing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court has gravely erred in holding that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property, although, the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 were proved in accordance with law. The findings of the trial Court of the appellant/plaintiff not being the owner is clearly erroneous moreso because the respondents/defendants failed to file even a single document to establish as to how the suit property belonged to Gaon Sabha if at all, or how Sh. Risal Singh was in possession from whom the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 claimed to have taken possession, and finally if possession was given by Sh. Risal Singh to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, how was the said independent possession established.

5 8. Firstly, let us see whether the appellant/plaintiff has proved the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 by which he purchased the suit property from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. PW2 has in his examination in chief deposed that the signatures on the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 are of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh inasmuch as, the said signatures were put in the presence of the appellant/plaintiff. In my opinion, this is sufficient compliance of the proof of a document inasmuch as Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 states that a document can be proved by a person in whose presence signatures were put and the document executed. The appellant/plaintiff being a purchaser from Subedar Major Jaswant Singh there would be nothing unnatural for him to be present when Ex.PW1/1 was executed in his favour by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. A mere suggestion on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the signatures on Ex.PW1/1 were not put by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in presence of the appellant/defendant, cannot in any manner help the respondents/defendants, moreso because Subedar Major Jaswant Singh is not questioning the transfer of title of the suit property by him which was done vide Ex.PW1/1 to the appellant/plaintiff. The argument urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants that the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 cannot be looked into because the witnesses of the sale deed have not been examined is an argument which is directly against the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which states that in case where a document is registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 there is no necessity to call an attesting witness in proof of such document unless the document is a Will or unless the execution of the document is denied by the person who purports to have executed the same. The executant Subedar Major Jaswant Singh has not disputed Ex.PW1/1 and therefore there was no need to summon the attesting witnesses of the document Ex.PW1/1. Therefore, in my opinion, the document Ex.PW1/1 stands proved and it is not open to the respondents/defendants to urge that the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 had not been proved in accordance with law. 9(i) So far as the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s Capital Housing Private Ltd. in favour of the appellant/plaintiff is concerned, in my opinion, the said document has been clearly proved through the witnesses PW5 and PW6 both of whom have deposed that they are conversant with the signatures of the Directors of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. namely Sh. Vilayati Ram and Sh. Rameshwar Prasad. It is not unusual that property dealers of the area, and PW 5 and PW6 were property dealers of the area in question, are aware of ownership of the plots in the name of the company who sells them as also the signatures of the Directors inasmuch as it is in

6 their routine course of business that they visit the persons who own the company which sells the plots. It has come on record that the suit property was situated in an unauthorized colony being Adarsh Nagar Extension and whose plots were carved out by the company-m/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. The mere fact that there is a suggestion given by the respondents/defendants that the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 are not conversant with the signatures of the Directors/Sh. Vilayati Ram and Sh. Rameshwar Prasad cannot take the case of the respondents/defendants any further inasmuch as if really the respondents/defendants were sure of their stand it was not difficult for them to summon the records of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. or the presence of their Directors or other appropriate persons to show if according to them the signatures on Ex. PW1/5 were really not put on behalf of the company-m/s. Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. The argument that the appellant/plaintiff had to file and prove the resolution of M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. to show transfer of suit property in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh is an argument without any merit inasmuch as the company-m/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. is not disputing the transfer of the title of the suit property in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. There is no locus standi of the respondents/defendants to question the transfer of title by Ex.PW1/5 to Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, once none of the parties involved with the transaction are in any manner, challenging the transaction encompassed in the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. (ii) I may note that the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr (8) SCC 752 has held that once the documents have been exhibited, subsequently no objection as to the mode of proof of the documents can be entertained. The Supreme Court has observed that if objection as to mode of proof is taken at the time of exhibition of the document, then, the person, who has exhibited and proved the document, can lead other evidence if so required to prove/ exhibit the document which has been challenged on the ground of mode of proof. However, once the objection is not taken at the necessary point of time, thereafter no further objection as to mode of proof of the document i.e. exhibiting of the document, can be taken. In the present case, merely raising an objection in cross-examination as to the mode of proof of the document or questioning the proving of document is not sufficient because this objection had to be taken either at the time when document was being exhibited or in any case before the cross-examination commenced inasmuch as once the crossexamination has commenced after the examination in chief is over, the opportunity to the opposite party to prove the document by other means

7 goes. Therefore, relying upon the ratio of R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder(supra), I hold that there cannot be any valid objection to the exhibition of the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5. This reason as stated by me is an additional reason to the conclusion otherwise given that the documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 have been proved in the manner known to law i.e. by application of Section 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 inasmuch as, both the witnesses PW 5 and PW 6 have stated that they were otherwise conversant with the signatures of the Directors of the company-m/s Capital Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and who had executed the sale deed Ex.PW1/5. (iii) Finally I must add that Supreme Court in the judgment of Gulzar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 (2) SCC 192 has held that Section 47 is not exhaustive of the manner of proof of a document and a document can also be proved by other means. The Supreme Court has said that there are other modes by which the identity of the handwriting can be established and citing an example the Supreme Court observes that if a letter is seized from the possession of A and the letter contains the name of the sender as well as the name of the sendee and if such sendee happens to be A himself, those circumstances even without resorting to the mode indicated in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, would be sufficient to draw an inference that the author or even scribe of that letter is the sender and A is the sendee of it. In this case the title deed Ex.PW1/5 has come from correct custody and therefore I hold that in the facts of the present case, it is otherwise proved that the document Ex.PW1/5 is a sale deed executed by M/s Capital Housing Society Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh, especially considering the fact that neither M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd nor Subedar Major Jaswant Singh have in any manner questioned the transaction comprised in Ex.PW1/ I therefore hold that the appellant/plaintiff has proved on record its title to the suit property by means of the sale deeds, Ex.PW1/1 executed by Subedar Major Jaswant Singh in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, and Ex.PW1/5 executed by M/s Capital Housing Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Subedar Major Jaswant Singh. 11. Whereas the appellant /plaintiff has filed the aforesaid title deeds, the respondents/defendants on the other hand have not filed any documentary proof whatsoever of the alleged ownership of the Gaon Sabha of the suit plot, the alleged coming into possession of this plot by Sh. Risal Singh, the alleged handing over of possession by Sh. Risal Singh to respondent

8 no.1/defendant no.1 and much less in the year 1975, and defendant No.1 being in possession thereof thereafter as an owner. If such oral depositions which have been made by the respondents/defendants to claim ownership of their property are accepted, it would create chaos because by a mere statement of ownership, rights in an immovable property of a real owner can be lost and which can be claimed by the persons who simply make oral depositions. Once, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was not the owner of the property, there cannot arise issue of any transfer of title to Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, brother of defendant no.2 and thereafter to defendant no.3/wife of defendant no Considerable emphasis was laid on behalf of the respondents/defendants to the fact that whereas in the plaint, it is mentioned that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for taking care of the suit property, but in the evidence it was deposed by the appellant/plaintiff that when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 who was making tea in the same area, offered to take care of the said plot when the appellant/plaintiff expressed his thoughts of the requirement of taking care and preventing encroachment of the suit property. This argument urged on behalf of the respondents/ defendants, in my opinion, is an argument which lacks any substance, because when the plaint says that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 approached the appellant/plaintiff, obviously, what is being meant is that the first action was taken by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 i.e inclination to be appointed as a care taker of the suit property was shown by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. If in the deposition, the appellant/plaintiff stated that when he went to the suit property in the year 1984, and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 said that he is ready to take care of the suit property and would stay in the room which existed in the suit property, it would still mean that it is the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, who effectively approached the appellant/plaintiff to take care of the suit property. I do not see any such major/great contradiction in the plaint as compared to the deposition of the appellant/plaintiff to hold that on this ground itself the suit is liable to be dismissed. 13(i). One other aspect on which great stress was laid on behalf of the respondents/defendants was that the pleadings in an earlier suit filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram could not be looked into against the respondents/defendants as they did not form part of the averments made in the suit plaint. Before I discuss this argument urged on behalf of the

9 respondents/defendants, a brief resume of the facts of the earlier suit filed in the year 1988 by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram against the respondent no.1 herein and two other persons is necessary. The plaint and the written statement in the said suit have been filed and exhibited by the appellant/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/9 and Ex. PW 1/10. A reference to the plaint Ex.PW1/9 of suit no. 408/1988 shows that the plaintiff therein namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram (who is none other than the real brother of the defendant no.2 in this suit) claimed ownership of the suit property from the defendant no.1 by paying of a consideration amount of Rs.40,000/-. It was claimed that the plaintiff in that said suit-sh.ashok Kumar was in possession of the suit property and therefore, injunction was sought against the defendants in the suit namely, respondent no.1 herein and two other persons including the defendant no.3 therein who was SHO of the area, not to dispossess the plaintiff-sh. Ashok Kumar Ram. The written statement filed to this suit by the defendant no.1 herein makes interesting reading. The written statement, if at all the same can be called a written statement, admits and concedes to everything which is stated in the plaint. Each and every para of the written statement admits each and every para of the plaint including the prayer para of the plaint. It is admitted therein that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in that suit will not create any obstruction with the plaintiff s possession of the suit plot. Obviously, therefore, this suit was a rank collusive suit so as to create evidence of possession and some sort of title of Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram over the suit property when it was always to the knowledge of the defendant no.1 in that suit, and who is the defendant no.1 in this suit, that he was never the owner of the suit property. Obviously, judicial process has been misused by the plaintiff in the said suit in collusion with the defendant no.1 herein. Such types of practices need to be strongly deprecated. (ii) Now on the issue as to whether the appellant/plaintiff cannot rely on these pleadings Ex. PW 1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 because they were not mentioned in the plaint. I must state that I have really failed to make any sense of this argument. This I say so because a plaint, in a suit for possession and mesne profits, basically has to contain the cause of action with regard to the ownership of the plaintiff, and as to how the defendant in the suit is in the illegal possession, and, there is no requirement in law of mentioning in such a plaint that there exists evidence of earlier collusive suit to show alleged title of defendant no.1 and Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram, the brother of defendant no.1. Surely, pleadings of an earlier collusive suit are only evidences to establish in favour of the appellant/plaintiff the malafides and collusion inter se the defendants and which evidences can always be filed and relied upon without being so mentioned in the plaint. I therefore

10 reject the argument that the documents being Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 cannot be looked into because they were not pleaded in the plaint. 14(i). One other issue which was urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants was with respect to the fact that the suit property for which the appellant/plaintiff has filed the documents of title being sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 is not the suit property and that the suit property is different than the subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5. Even this argument in my opinion is an argument totally devoid of any merit whatsoever. The facts of the present case must be understood in the context that the colony Adarsh Nagar Extension is an unauthorized colony. Such unauthorized colonies over a period of time, are referred to by varying names which are related to each other. Since there is no regularized name given by the MCD with regard to the said colony, residents of that area or the buyers of the plots or sellers of the plots, call the colony by a name which they find suitable. Over a period of time, to enable better description of a plot, residents may add or subtract to what is stated in the sale deed with respect to plots of such colonies. In the present case, however, there is no doubt that suit plot is the very plot which was subject matter of the sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5 inasmuch as, except minor differences, it is clear that the plot number is C-11, the same is a plot which is part of Adarsh Nagar Extension and bounded on the four sides by plot No. C-10; plot No. C- 12; road 30 ft. wide on one side; and a service lane/gali on the back side. In fact, the plan filed in the present suit exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 when compared to the plan filed by Sh. Ashok Kumar Ram in the earlier collusive suit Ex.PW1/9 shows that both the plans are almost completely identical. In my opinion, therefore, the argument sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents/defendants to create doubt as to the identity of the property is wholly malafide and just to frustrate the valuable ownership rights of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit property. To the above, I may only add that if really the suit property is not the property which is so stated in Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, then respondents/defendants could have stated where this property is existing, which is the subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, if the same does not exist on the plot which is presently in possession of the respondents/defendants. Of course, it can be said that it is not the duty of the respondents/defendants to say that where would be the property which is subject matter of Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/5, however, in the facts of this case once we have the plan in the earlier suit filed in 1988 by none other than Sh. Ashok Kr. Ram (who is the brother of defendant No.2 in this suit) and the similar plan filed in the present suit Ex.PW1/4, there does not remain any doubt as to the identity of the suit property and therefore, I would feel that it

11 was the respondents/defendants, if they doubted the identity of the suit property, who should have given further reasons. In any case, no further observations need to be made in this regard in view of the fact that except for minor changes with regard to the road being called a bunglow road or cottage road there is no doubt that the property No. C-11 is the only property No. C-11 existing in the Adarsh Nagar Extension. I, therefore, hold that there is no confusion with respect to the identity of the suit property. (ii) While on this aspect of the identity I must also deal with the issue with respect to the house tax record Ex.PW1/12 seeming to suggest as if the suit property is constructed in the year 1979 because there appears to be a date of in the house tax record Ex.PW1/12 as filed by the appellant/plaintiff. In this regard it has to be stated that it is difficult to understand the context in which this date of is given in this document inasmuch as the year 1979 appears with the numerical no and it cannot be said with surety that the reference of 1979 in Ex.PW1/12 is only for the year of construction. In any case, a minor contradiction of construction of a suit room in 1979 as compared to the statement of the appellant/plaintiff as the same having been constructed in 1982 cannot have such a drastic effect to take away the ownership of the suit property which otherwise has been proved by the appellant/plaintiff by means of registered sale deeds Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/ On the aspect of mesne profits, the appellant/plaintiff in his examination-in-chief as PW-2 has stated that rate of rent of the suit property would be in the region of `1500/- to ` 2000/- per month. Admittedly, there is no cross-examination to this statement which has been made by the appellant/plaintiff and therefore this statement with respect to the rate of rent of the property has to be accepted. In any case, surely for a property of 200 sq. yds in Delhi, it cannot be said that mesne profits at `2000/- per month can in any manner be said to be excessive. The respondent No.1 is running a dairy business from the suit property and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have made construction and are living in the suit property. I am therefore of the opinion that besides the suit for possession being decreed, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a sum of ` 2,000/- per month from , increased by 20% every five years on the previous years mesne profits, pendente lite and future till possession of the suit property is handed over by the respondents/defendants to the appellant/plaintiff, whether voluntarily or through execution proceedings.

12 16. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, in the facts of the present case, has rightly relied upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandavana Paripalanai Sangam Represented by its president etc. MANU/SC 0336/2012, wherein the Supreme Court has made very strong observations where care takers/chowkidars of the property start claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property. Para 42 of the said judgment is relevant and I would seek to reproduce the same at this stage:- 42. On the facts of the present case, following principles emerges: 1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice. 2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. 3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful. 4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice. 5. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process. 6. Watchman, caretaker or a servant employed to look after the property can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The watchman, caretaker or a servant is under an obligation to hand over the possession forthwith on demand. According to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a watchman, caretaker or servant who was only allowed to live into the premises to look after the same. 7. The watchman, caretaker or agent holds the property to the principal only on behalf the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.

13 8. The protection of the Court can be granted or extended to the person who has valid subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour. (underlining is mine) The above observations of the Supreme Court must be read alongwith the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 in which the Supreme Court has observed that it is high time that actual costs must be imposed so that a party which has unfairly contested litigation is not benefited. I am also empowered to impose actual costs by virtue of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated is set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the property No.A-11, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yds and more particularly shown in Ex.PW1/4 is decreed with costs which I quantify at `2 lacs. The appellant/plaintiff will also be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of ` 2000/- per month increased by 20% every five years pendente lite and future against the defendants jointly and severally till possession of the suit property is received by the appellant/plaintiff. Appellant is also awarded interest at 9% per annum simple on mesne profits from the end of the month for which mesne profits are payable in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Saroj Baweja 2005(12) SCC 298. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court record be sent back. 18. Finally, in view of the observations which have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Shanmugam (supra), I give opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to file an application under Section 340 Cr. P.C for taking appropriate action against the respondents/defendants. The appeal is allowed and disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- MAY 16, 2012 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

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 : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.1200/2006 % 1 st October, 2015 MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. Versus MR. RAJIV GUPTA AND ORS. Through:...

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

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.

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. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

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

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

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2711/2015 % 28 th October, 2015 SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL Through:... Plaintiff Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus SH. RAJ GOYAL AND ORS. Through:... Defendants

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

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 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

*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 : 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 : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate....Appellants

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 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, 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 information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : 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 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 : 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 : 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, 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

IN 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: 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 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. + 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 : 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

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment Reserved on: 01.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 18.03.2011 I.A. No. 14803/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1943/1998 Sita Kashyap & Anothers..

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

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 + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 EKO INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sumit Roy, Advocate versus MR. SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV Through

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

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

- 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. + 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: 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

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 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA. R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA. R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA R.S.A.No.1045/2006 (INJ) BETWEEN: Sri Ramakrishna S/o Shivannegowda Aged

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : 14.02.2013 Date of Decision : 28.05.2013 LPA 858/2004 BANWARI LAL SHARMA Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate....

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

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1738/2013 Judgment reserved on 10 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on 23 rd September, 2015 HARISH CHAND TANDON Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Shalini

More information

IN 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: 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 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 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

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

W.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 information

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

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

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Shri Manik Chakraborty S/o late Bijoy Chakravorty R/o Rangapara Town, Ward No. 4, P.O. Rangapara,

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

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 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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. JAI SHREE LALLA Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRADE MARK Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: January 29, 2007 CS(OS)No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRADE MARK Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: January 29, 2007 CS(OS)No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRADE MARK Order Reserved on: 09.01.2007 Date of Decision: January 29, 2007 CS(OS)No.2749 OF 2000 Prestige Housewares Ltd. & Anr.... Plaintiffs Through:

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

*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

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA (OS) No. 20/2002 Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 Decided on : 8th August, 2008 MANSOOR MUMTAZ and ORS. Through : Mr. S.D. Ansari,

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

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

% 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 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

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999 Date of Reserve : 05.08.2010 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 SMT. SUDESH MADHOK Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate.... Plaintiff

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Alauddin, S/o Late Nazar Ali, 2. Mrs. Phulmati W/o Alauddin Both are resident of- Village:-

More information

26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 22 nd August, 2017 J U D G M E N T

26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 22 nd August, 2017 J U D G M E N T 26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 383/2017 UNION OF INDIA... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Mr. Anshuamn Upadhyay, Ms.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.09.2017 + W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No. 23379/2017 M/S EPSILON PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS... Respondents

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on : September 17, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on : September 17, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : September 17, 2008 Judgment delivered on : September 24, 2008 RFA 545/2005 RAVENDER PAUL... Appellant Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.57422 OF 2013 (CESTAT)

More information

Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi & Mr. T.R. Thakur, Advocates.

Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi & Mr. T.R. Thakur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION F.A.O. No.375 of 2007 & C.M. Nos.14346/2006, 11550, 16729/2007, 4598/2008, 4915/2009, 9924-9925/2011, 19493, 20294, 21007,

More information

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs.

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 13th May, 2014 FAO(OS) 579/2013 & CM No.20049/2013 (for stay) SMT. SANTOSH ARORA & ORS Through: Mr. Ankit Jain,

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 16850 OF 2017 (@ S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.21033/2017) REPORTABLE Himangni Enterprises.Appellant(s) VERSUS Kamaljeet Singh

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

(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008

(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 AGNESS SIMBAMBILI GABBA. APPELLANT VERSUS DAVID SAMSON GABBA RESPONDENT

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : 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 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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate.

REGISTRAR GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI with Mr. Tarun Verma, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Crl. Rev. P. No. 120 of 2010 % Date of Reserve: July 29, 2010 Date of Order: 12 th August, 2010 12.08.2010 MOHAN LAL JATIA... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Sud,

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF JUNE 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1348 OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, 1998 Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. W.P.(C) 8711-15/2005 & CM No.8018/2005 & CM No.6522/2005 (both for stay) FEDERATION OF

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

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 SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA SC / Appeal / 158/2014 In the matter of an appeal in terms of Article 127 of the Constitution to be read with Section 5(C) of the

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 : 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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2412 of 2006 PETITIONER: Prem Singh & Ors. RESPONDENT: Birbal & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) No. 3768 of 2015 ------ M/s Tata Steel Limited, an existing Company under previous Company Law, through Mrs. MeenaLall wife of Shri BehariLall,

More information

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC)

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 1188 of 2011 & IAs 7950 of 2011 (u/o 39 R. 1 & 2 CPC), 3388 of 2013 (u/o XXVI R. 2 CPC) & 18427 of 2013 (by Plaintiff u/o VII R. 14 CPC) LT FOODS LIMITED...

More information

FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE

FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE 1 FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE Against three mortgages of agricultural lands situated in villages Pal and Bhatha admeasuring

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT This appeal by special leave

More information

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 34/2016

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 34/2016 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI.. IN THE MATTER OF: ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 34/2016 Naresh Zargar S/o Late Sh. S.P. Zargar, R/o 2235, Shaheed Gulab Singh Ward, Indranagar,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : April 25, 2014 + IA No. 5745/2013 (u/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 660/2013 WOCKHARDT LTD. Through... Plaintiff Mr.Ajay Sahni, Ms. Kanika Bajaj and

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO Writ Appeal No.597 of 2008

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010 M/S. SCANDIA SHIPBROKERING & AGENCY LTD...Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prashant Pratap and

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

NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006

NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006 (Authoritative English Text) GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Shimla -2, the 21st January, 2006 No. PER (AR) F (7) -2/98-Vol.1. - In exercise of the powers

More information