IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE P R E S E N T THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL A N D

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE P R E S E N T THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL A N D"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014 P R E S E N T THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.PATIL A N D THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA WRIT PETITION NO.58906/2013 (GM-CPC) & WRIT PETITION NO.16412/2014 (GM-CPC) W.P.No.58906/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT.GIRIJA W/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 3. SMT.SUNITHA W/O LATE SURESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

2 2 ALL ARE R/o SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VASANTH V. FERNANDES A/W SRI R.GUNASHEKAR, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT.KANTHAMMA, W/O LATE BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. SRI.RAMANJANEYA, S/O BHEMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. BOTH RESIDING NEAR OLD BUS STAND, SRISHAILA TALKIES ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN AND TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PIN CODE SRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O SEEBEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESSMAN, TAGARANAHATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN CODE RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA AND SRI HARISH N.R., ADVS. FOR R3; R1 & R2 NOTICE ISSUED)

3 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM AT CHITRADURGA, IN M.A.NO.12/2013 AS PER ANNX-P & THEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER DT PASSED IN O.S.NO.499/2010 ON I.A.NO.11 IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN.) [NOW THE CIVIL JUDGE] AT CHITRADURGA AS PER ANNX-M. W.P.NO.16412/2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SANNERAMMA W/O LATE THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. THIMMANNA S/O LATE THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. JAYANNA S/O LATE THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. CHANDRANNA S/O LATE THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/AT HOLUGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PETITIONERS (BY SRI KENCHEGOWDA, ADV.)

4 4 AND: 1. BASAVARAJAIAH S/O MATADA VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. ERAIAH S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. SHANTHAIAH S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 5. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O KOTRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 6. M.C. NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 7. M.C. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 8. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O MATADA VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 9. M.C. SIDDAIAH S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

5 5 10. M.C. CHELUMESWAMY S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 10 ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HALAGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE, PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT SMT. PREMA W/O M.C. RUDRAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 12. MANJANNA S/O LATE M.C. RUDRAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 13. SANTHOSH S/O LATE M.C. RUDRAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.11 TO 13 ARE R/AT GANDHINAGAR, 1 ST CROSS, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MIG 3(A), BELLARY TOWN, BELLARY DISTRICT RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R-1; R2 TO R13 NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:27/6/2014) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: IN M.A.NO.16/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL

6 6 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEX-A AS ILLEGAL, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - O R D E R These writ petitions are placed before us by the Hon ble Chief Justice on the request of the Learned Single Judge to refer the following question to a larger Bench for consideration: Whether the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction can maintain an application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908? 2. Before answering the above question, it is useful to briefly refer to the facts giving rise to the reference. 3. W.P.No.58906/2013 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.499/2010, a suit instituted on before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Chitradurga for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The

7 7 plaintiffs also sought interim order of temporary injunction by filing an application U/o XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of CPC but, the court passed an exparte order on to maintain statusquo, till appearance of the defendants. On service of summons, the defendants appeared on and the 3 rd defendant, on , filed I.A. No.11 U/o XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge by order dated dismissed I.A.No.11 filed by the 3 rd defendant U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the 3 rd defendant preferred M.A.No.12/2013 and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitradurga, while allowing the appeal set aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.11 and granted an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs have filed the writ petition. 4. W.P.No.16412/2014, is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.19/2012, a suit filed on for a declaration that

8 8 they are the lawful owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties and for a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also maintained an I.A. for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. On , the 1 st defendant too filed an I.A. U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of the suit schedule. The trial Court after hearing the parties, while dismissing the I.A. for temporary injunction filed both by the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant, directed them to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.7, the 1 st defendant preferred M.A.16/2013 before the District Court, Chitradurga. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by order dated , allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the 1 st

9 9 defendant s peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1 st item of the suit schedule, by allowing I.A. No.7. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs have preferred the writ petition. 5. The parties are referred to as per their original rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Section 94 of CPC r/w Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC confers power on the Civil Court to grant an order of temporary injunction. While the defendant in a suit is conferred with right to seek temporary injunction in a case falling under Clause (a) of Order XXXIX rule 1 of CPC, no such right is conferred on him in the cases falling under Clause (b) and (c) thereof. The civil court no doubt, has inherent powers to pass such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, but the same cannot be exercised when a case is covered by specific provisions of CPC. In the case on hand the defendant s stand is covered U/o XXXIX Rule 1(c) where no right

10 10 is conferred on him to a relief of temporary injunction and therefore the Court could not have granted the said relief in exercise of its inherent powers. The Appellate Court has committed a serious error in granting an order of injunction in favour of the 1 st defendant in O.S.19/12 while allowing M.A.16/ Per contra, learned Counsel for the defendants supported the order passed by the Appellate Court by arguing that when the case of the defendant does not fall U/o XXXIX Rule 1(c) of CPC and the circumstances call for exercise of inherent powers, the Court could exercise the same to grant the relief and the Appellate Court has rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the 1 st defendant as prayed. 8. For answering the question referred to this Bench it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

11 11 9. Section 94 under Part-VI of the Code dealing with supplementary proceedings, sets out the nature of order that a court may pass in order to prevent justice being defeated and it reads as under: Section 94. Supplemental proceedings - In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the court may, if it is so prescribed (a) issue warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the court of order the attachment of any property; (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;

12 12 (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property; (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the court to be just and convenient. 10. Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code states that a Court may grant a temporary injunction there under, only if it is so prescribed. Section 2(16) of the Code defines the word Prescribed to mean Prescribed by the Rules. Therefore temporary injunction may be granted U/s 94(c) of the Code only if a case satisfies the requirements of the Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code and not otherwise. Therefore, when a matter comes before the Court, it has to examine the facts and ascertain whether the conditions of Section 94 r/w order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code are satisfied and only thereafter grant appropriate relief. 11. The relevant rule relating to grant of temporary injunction is also culled out for easy reference and it may be

13 13 pertinent to point out at this juncture itself that clause (c) Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of the Code was inserted by Act No.104/1976 w.e.f Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.- Where in any Suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit. The court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or

14 14 dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. (Underlining by us) 12. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision discloses that the Court is empowered to grant three types of orders under three different and distinct situations. Firstly when the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, temporary injunction to prevent the same can be granted. The second situation arises when the disputed property is under the threat of being removed or disposed of by the defendant with the intention of defrauding his creditors who include the plaintiff also. The third situation is when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the plaintiff in respect of disputed property.

15 Clause (a) of Order XXXIX rule 1 CPC provides that where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise, that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger or being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property. The reason is obvious. After institution of the suit, the plaintiff may act detrimental to the interest of the defendant in the subject matter of the suit by allowing it to be wasted or damaged or alienated and in such an event, the defendant can take recourse to making application U/o XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC. 14. What Clause (b) of Order XXXIX rule 1 of CPC envisages is that a plaintiff can seek temporary injunction when there is a threat by the defendant to dispose of the property with a view to render the decree that may be passed in the suit useless or infructuous. Similarly, under Clause (c) of order XXXIX rule 1

16 16 CPC whenever the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may restrain dispossession of the plaintiff until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 15. The Legislature has consciously used the words any party to the suit in Rule 1(a) of order XXXIX CPC but the same is conspicuously missing in Clauses (b) and (c). However, the words the defendant threatens appearing in Clauses (b) and (c) of rule 1 of order XXXIX CPC make it clear that the Court can grant an order of temporary injunction only in favour of the plaintiff because the Legislature has expressly not included the words plaintiff threatens and also not used the words any party to the suit in these clauses. 16. In fact, this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC in the case of Veerabhadrappa vs- Mayappa reported in ILR 1993

17 17 KAR 161 has pointed out the distinction between them in the following words: These provisions make it abundantly clear that it is only under Sub-clause (a) of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC that any party to the suit could be restrained by means of an order of temporary injunction, which clearly presupposes that either the plaintiff or the defendant could file the application against the other party under this particular sub-clause. The other two sub-clauses viz., (b) and (c) of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC as also Order 39 Rule 2 CPC enable the Court to grant injunction against the defendant restraining him from committing the several acts mentioned therein. The word any party occurring in Sub-rule (a) of Rule 1 does not find a place in theses Rules. Therefore it is clear that it is only the plaintiff that could seek redress under these Rules against the defendant. Having regard to the plain language of these Rules, by no means could it be contended that defendant is entitled to obtain an order of injunction against the plaintiff under these very subrules. A faint attempt was made by the learned Advocate for respondent by relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Decision reported in MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA V. RAI

18 18 BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL (AIR 1962 SC 527), wherein it has been mentioned that there is nothing in Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 which provides specifically that a temporary injunction is not to be issued in cases which are not mentioned in those Rules. This observation of the Supreme Court has to be read in the context of the earlier and later observations made therein wherein their Lordships have discussed the aspect that the Court has always got inherent powers to grant injunction under Section 151 CPC. It is in that context that in Paragraph 19 it has been stated that the particular Rules do not provide that no injunction should be issued in cases which are not mentioned therein. By these observations it cannot be said that the Court could still grant injunction under those very Rules themselves in respect of cases which do not fall under the said Rules. Therefore, the contention that even under these sub-rules viz., Sub-rule (b) and (c) of Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 CPC a defendant can obtain an order of injunction against the plaintiff cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the defendant that the case put forward by him fits into Sub-rule (a) of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC wherein any party could be restrained by grant of an injunction.

19 Bombay High Court too in the case of Nanasaheb vs- Dattu & Others reported in AIR 1992 BOMBAY 24 has expressed similar views as under: Provisions of Rule 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) are intended to meet different situations and different purposes. Rule 1(a) speaks about the injunctions when the property is in danger of waste, damage or alienation. Whereas Rule 1(b) speaks about threatening removal or disposal from the property with a view to defraud his creditors and Rule 1(c) speaks about threatening dispossession or any other injury in relation to the property. Prayer for injunction restraining other party from obstructing enjoyment of well water would be covered by Rule 1(c) of Order 39. Mischief to be prevented by the temporary injunction in respect of situations under Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 and under Rule 2 should be that of the defendant. However, mischief to be prevented by the temporary injunction in situations under Clause (a) of Rule 1 can be from either of the parties. A clear distinction appears to have been deliberately made in

20 20 framing this rule by authorizing in respect of the situations listed in Clause (a) of Rule 1 on one hand and Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1 and Rule 2 on the other hand. In respect of situations covered by the first clause, injunctions can be granted in favour of either of the parties whereas in respect of situations covered by other clauses injunction can be granted only in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of the defendant From the above, it is clear that in a suit filed by the plaintiff, it is open to the defendant to file an application only U/o XXXIX Rule 1(a) of CPC seeking temporary injunction and the Court on being satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such injunction, can grant the same in its discretion. But, the defendant cannot maintain an application U/o XXXIX rule 1(b) and (c) of CPC at all. SCOPE OF SECTION 151 CPC 19. The next point would be, when the defendant is not entitled to the relief of injunction against the plaintiff in a case

21 21 falling U/o XXXIX rule 1 clause (c) CPC whether the Court could grant the relief in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction? 20. The defendants have placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in support of the contention that in the absence of specific provision the court can exercise its power U/s 151 of the Code and grant relief to the defendant or any party to the suit. For better appreciation of this contention it is necessary consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in a chronological order and before that, it is useful to refer to Section 151 CPC which reads as under: Sec.151. Saving of inherent powers of Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 21. In para 8 of the judgment in Padam Sen and Another vs- State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1961 SC 218) the Apex Court has held as under:

22 22 The inherent powers of the Court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore it must be held that the Court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in S. 151 of the Code when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature. It is also well recognized that the inherent power is not to be exercised in a manner which will be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code. 22. While making it clear that though the Court has inherent power to make such orders, as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, the Supreme Court has placed three restrictions on exercise of inherent power by the court namely, (1) Firstly, the inherent power should not be exercised in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code;

23 23 (2) Secondly, the power cannot be exercised against the intention of the legislature; and (3) Thirdly, it shall not be exercised in a manner, which would be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code. 23. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra vs- Rai Bahadur Rao Raj Seth Hiralal reported in AIR 1962 SC 527 after taking note of the divergent views by various High Courts in the country, has held as under: 18. There is difference of opinion between the High Courts on this point. One view is that a Court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the circumstances do not fall within the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code. The other view is that a Court can issue an interim injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction. We are of opinion that the latter view is correct and that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunctions in circumstances which are not

24 24 covered by the provisions of O.XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no such expression in Section 94 which expressly prohibits the issue of a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by Order XXXIX or by any rules made under the Code. It is wellsettled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them. The effect of the expression 'if it is so prescribed' is only this that when the rules prescribe the circumstances in which the temporary injunction can be issued, ordinarily the Court is not to use its inherent powers to make the necessary orders in the interests of justice, but is merely to see whether the circumstances of the case bring it within the prescribed rule. if the provisions of Section 94 were not there in the Code, the Court could still issue temporary injunctions, but it could do that in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. No party has a right to insist on the Court's exercising that jurisdiction and the Court exercises its inherent jurisdiction only when it considers it absolutely necessary for the ends of justice to do so. It is in the incidence of the exercise of the power of the Court to

25 25 issue temporary injunction that the provisions of Section 94 of the Code have their effect and not in taking away the right of the Court to exercise its inherent power. 19. There is nothing in Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, which provide specifically that a temporary injunction is not to be issued in cases which are not mentioned in those rules. The rules only provide that in circumstances mentioned in them the Court may grant a temporary injunction. 24. Further in para 21, the Apex Court also made reference to Padam Sen s case After referring to the observations which is as below: These observations clearly mean that the inherent powers are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code as has been specifically stated in S. 151 itself. But those powers are not to be exercised when their exercise may be in conflict with what had been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature. This restriction, for practical purposes, on the exercise of those powers is not because those powers are controlled by the

26 26 provisions of the Code but because it should be presumed that the procedure specifically provided by the Legislature for orders in certain circumstances is dictated by the interests of justice. 25. In this context, it is useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vs- M/s.Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur reported in AIR 1975 SC 1039 wherein at para- 18 it is held as under: We have said enough and we may say it again that where the Legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme and language of a statute, it is the duty of the Court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy, and without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such expressed intent of the law-giver Again the Apex Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs- United Industrial Bank Limited and others, AIR 1983 SC 1272 dealing with the power

27 27 of the Court to grant temporary injunction, inspite of prohibition under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act and after referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra and Padam Sen (supra), has held as under: In view of the majority decision, it must be conceded that the court can in appropriate cases grant temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent power in cases not covered by Order 39 C.P.C. But while exercising this inherent power, the court should not overlook the statutory provision which clearly indicates that injunction to restrain initiation of proceeding cannot be granted. Section 41 (b) is one such provision. And it must be remembered that inherent power of the court cannot be invoked to nullify or stultify a statutory provision. 27. Therefore, what follows from the above is that, though the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, the Court can grant an order of temporary injunction in its inherent jurisdiction, even though the matter does not fall under Order XXXIX of the Code. It is true that Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 do

28 28 not provide specifically that a temporary injunction shall not be issued in cases, not mentioned in those Rules. But, once the Legislature prescribes the cases in which an order of temporary injunction is to be granted and the cases in which such an injunction cannot be granted, the Court should respect the legislative intent, as reflected by the statutory provisions. The legislative intent may be either express or may be clear by necessary implication. As long as the intention of the Legislature could be gathered from the provisions and it is clear, inherent power should not be exercised, then to nullify or stultify such a provision. 28. The instant case would fall U/o XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC and therefore the court cannot grant temporary injunction by exercising its inherent powers. If this were to be a case not covered U/o XXXIX rule 1 and 2 CPC then the court could in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, grant and order of temporary injunction.

29 29 CONCEPT OF SAME CAUSE OF ACTION 29. Realizing the above difficulties and to overcome to the same, it was contended that the defendant can maintain an application for injunction, if the relief sought is incidental to the plaintiff s cause of action or arises out of it. In support of the same judgment of this Court in the case of Suganda Bai vs- Sulu Bai & Others (1975) 1 KLJ 96, is relied upon. This was a case where reliance was placed on two English authorities to hold that: Now the principles, under which a defendant may seek and obtain an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiff, are stated in Collison v. Warren(1), where Buckley, J., after referring to a number of earlier decisions of the English Courts, quoted Lopes, LJ., in (1824) 2 Ch.545: The question is this - whether the defendant can move for an injunction against the plaintiff without filing a counter-claim or issuing a writ in a crossaction. In my opinion, he can in some cases, but only in cases where the defendant s claim to relief arises

30 30 out of the plaintiff s cause of action, or is incidental to it. 30. At the outset, the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC are not interpreted in Suganda Bai s case. Secondly, Order XXXIX Rule 1(c) was not in the statute book as on the date of that judgment and it came to be incorporated w.e.f by Act No.104/1976. Thirdly, this Court while deciding Suganda Bai s case relied on the judgments of the English Court, which were based on common law whereas, in the case on hand we are called upon to interpret a statutory provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, a codified law. Nowhere in Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are the words cause of action referred to. Therefore, it would be contrary to the statutory provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure to hold that the defendant can maintain an application for injunction on the same cause of action, on which the plaintiff has come to the court. 31. However, on an earlier occasion when it was found that the judgments on the point do not lay down the correct law,

31 31 a reference was made to the Division Bench in the case of Ramaiah vs- Gowdappa reported in ILR 1989 KAR 962 on the following questions: 1. Whether the defendants can file an application seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the plaintiffs? And 2. Whether the decision of this Court in SUGANDA BAI vs SULU BAI & OTHERS (1975(1) KLJ 96) places any restriction in the matter of grant of temporary injunction in favour of defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiffs? 32. The Division Bench, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in MANOHARLAL CHOPRA s case (cited supra), held that the defendant can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 for an injunction against the plaintiff by making a distinction between a suit for partition and separate possession and a suit for bare injunction and the judgment in Suganda Bai s case was held to be in conformity with the view taken in MANOHARLAL CHOPRA s case. In both the judgments,

32 32 the difference in the language employed in Rule 1 (a) and Rules 1(b) and (c) is not noticed. Therefore, we are of the view that, when the statute prescribes a particular procedure set out in a provision in which the word cause of action is conspicuously missing, it is not possible to hold that a defendant can maintain an application for injunction if it is based on the same cause of action as that of the plaintiff or incidental thereto and further that, such an application cannot be maintained if the cause of action for the defendant arises subsequent to the cause of action the plaintiff has pleaded. We do not find any support to such a proposition of law as is laid down in the above two judgments and therefore, we over rule the same. 33. The correct legal position as is clear from the statutory provision is as under: (i) Both the plaintiff and the defendant can maintain an application U/o XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code for the reliefs set out in the said provision;

33 33 (ii) Insofar as relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (b) and (c) is concerned, such a relief is available only to the plaintiff and the defendant cannot maintain an application for the said reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that his right to such relief arises either from the same cause of action or a cause of action that arises subsequent to filing of the suit. However it is open to the defendant to maintain a separate suit against the plaintiff and seek relief provided under Order 39 Rule 1(b) and (c) of the Code. (iii) In cases which do not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in its discretion, if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court and nothing in this Code shall limit or otherwise affect such inherent power of the court. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to for our consideration in the negative.

34 Office is directed to place these writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with the judgment rendered by us in these cases. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NVJ & KNM/-

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.14832/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. K. Bhagyamma,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.460-462 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.B.R.NAGALAKSHMI

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

WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC)

WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 BEFORE R THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL. WRIT PETITION Nos /2010 (GM-RES),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL. WRIT PETITION Nos /2010 (GM-RES), 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED: THIS THE 27 th DAY OF JUNE, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL WRIT PETITION Nos. 38220-221/2010 (GM-RES), BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION No.

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

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

More information

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

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 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.No.2556/2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.PRAKASH S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED

More 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 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

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

Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellant(s) versus Ashwani Kumar and others Respondent(s)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA BETWEEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1020/2013 SIDDANAGOUDA S/O VENKANAGOUDA

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

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: 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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

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

More information

IN THE 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

- 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

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 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

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN. Writ Petition Nos /2017 (T-IT)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN. Writ Petition Nos /2017 (T-IT) 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition Nos.1339-1342/2017 (T-IT) Between : Flipkart

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

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. W.P. No.750/2017. Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. W.P. No.750/2017. Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.750/2017 Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M.P and another Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sahu,

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : 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 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 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

$~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 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.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

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

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

* 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. + 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 : 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

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : 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: 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

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

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

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 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

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

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus: 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10173 of 2011) Central Bank of India Appellant :Versus: C.L. Vimla & Ors.

More information

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

- 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 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 : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 OMP No.356/2004 Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD. Through : PETITIONER Mr.

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 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 213 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 213 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Arising out of Order dated 18 th September, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA WRIT PETITION NO OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA WRIT PETITION NO OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA WRIT PETITION NO. 28602 OF 2015 BETWEEN SMT. SWATI PAI, W/O MR. PRAVEEN

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 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 : 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

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Sections:. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. 3. Registrar and Deputy Registrars. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 96 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 4. Appeals from decisions of a single Judge of the

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

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

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the Hon'ble Judges: Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ. Dalveer Bhandari, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 4613 of 2000 Decided On: 18.08.2009 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. Vs.

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

% 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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

$~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 3539/2016. versus

$~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 3539/2016. versus $~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.09.2016 + W.P.(C) 3539/2016 PHUNTSOK WANGYAL... Petitioner versus MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS... Respondents Advocates

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On: MANU/TN/3588/2011 Equivalent Citation: 2011(6)CTC11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of 2011 Decided On: 26.08.2011 Appellants: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Sivakama Sundari

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 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 : 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 WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

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

More information

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

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

More information

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION NEW DELHI Coram: Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson Shri S. Jayaraman, Member Shri V.S. Verma, Member Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member Date of Hearing: 20.11.2012 Date of

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. + 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 SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIPHO ALPHA KONDLO Appellant and EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondent JUDGMENT

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 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

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

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL

IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL Page 1 of 18 IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH, GUWAHATI. OA. NO. 23/2012 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H. N. Sarma, Member (J) HON BLE CMDE MOHAN PHADKE (Retd), Member (A) Smti Anupama Sinha

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 R PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA W.A. No.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... APPELLANT through : Mr. Sanjeev

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 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

THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF

THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REFORMS AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL ACT, 1997 (WEST BENGAL ACT 25 OF 1997) [Passed by the West Bengal Legislature] [Assent of the Governor was first published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary,

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. 132 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 307 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2011 Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, 21 st Floor, RBI Building, Shahid

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

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

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

More information

WP(C) No.810/2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

WP(C) No.810/2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN 14.05.2015 WP(C) No.810/2015 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. SK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P Roy, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. B Hazarika,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

More information

IN THE 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 KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL 1 R AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA WRIT APPEAL NOS.2663-2674/2015(T-IT)

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