In CRP No.254 of Versus-

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In CRP No.254 of Versus-"

Transcription

1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) In CRP No.254 of 2014 Sri Manik Chand Patowa S/O Sri Maganmal Patowa R/O Central Road, Silchar Town Paragona-Barakpar, Dist.Cachar, Assam. Applicant -Versus- 1.Sri Sekhar Roy 2.Sri Soumendra Narayan Roy Both sons of Late Mihir Kumar Roy Both resident of Dr.NN Dutta Road, Silchar Town Paragona-Barakpar, Dist.Cachar, Assam 3.Mrs. Nomita Roy D/O Late Mihir Kumar Roy Resident of Public School Road Silchar -5, Paragona-Barakpar, Dist.Cachar, Assam On the death of Smti Smritikona Roy, her legal heir, 4.(a) Sri Abhijit Roy(son) In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 1 of 15

2 S/O Late Amar Chand Roy R/O Kuturbond P.O. Baraigram Dist.Karimganj, Assam 5. Smri Monisha Das(Roy) D/O Late Mihir Kumar Roy Presently residing at Link road, Silchar Town Silchar -5, Dist.Cachar, Assam 6. Smti Anita Das(Roy) D/O Late Mihir Kumar Roy Presently residing at Public School Road Silchar -5, Dist.Cachar, Assam. Opposite Party PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr.GN Sahewalla, Sr.Adv. Ms. R Jain, Advocate. : Mr. S Dey, Adv. Date of hearing Date of Judgment : JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R Jain for the petitioner and Mr.S Dey, learned counsel for the opposite party. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 2 of 15

3 2. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel submits that no application for setting aside abatement is necessary as the provision of Order XXII does not apply to a revision petition. Referring to Rule 11 of Order XXII, learned senior counsel would argue that the provision of Order XXII are applicable to suit, however, by Rule 11 thereof it has been extended to the appeals. There is nothing in Order XXII to show that it applies to a revision petition and so the same cannot be applicable. Under such circumstances, there is no question of abatement or limitation for setting aside abatement as well. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Lilawati Gupta & Ors vs- Union of India reported in 2004 (2) GLT 77. In paragraph-33 of the aforesaid judgment, this court made an observation that a revision does not stand on the same footing as an appeal inasmuch as an appeal is nothing but an extension of a suit. Since the provisions of Order XXII have been made applicable to a suit or an appeal and there can be no doubt about this, the provision of Order XXII cannot be extended to a revision. In so doing, reliance have also been placed in the case of Chandradeo Pandey vs- Sukhdeo Rai reported in (AIR 1972 Allahabad 504). That is ajudgment of Hon ble Three Judges of Allahabad High Court who have held the view that there is nothing in the Limitation Act to show that there is a fixed period for substitution of parties in a revision petition. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 3 of 15

4 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on the basis of the judgment of this court in the case of Lilawati Gupta(supra) as well as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandradeo Pandey (supra). In the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the Full Bench confined its consideration to the provisions of Limitation Act only. Since there is no mention of revision petition in the third Division under the Schedule of the limitation Act, the Full Bench was of the view that there was no period of limitation for substitution in the revision petition. In the case of Lilawati Gupta (supra) this court has merely relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in this regard and does not appear to have made any discussion as to whether a revision petition should be considered in the same footing as an appeal for the purpose of applying the provisions of Order XXII of the CPC. Perhaps some amount of deliberations is necessary in this regard. This is because under various statutes, revision petitions are preferred before this court as no appeal has been prescribed in the statute. For example, under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, only one appeal lies under Section 8 of the said Act but no further appeal lies there against. In view of the Full Bench Judgment of this court in the case of R.C.Basak vs-.d.n. Pandit reported in 1984 GHC 37(FJ) no second appeal lies against such appellate judgment as it is not provided for in the statute and so revision petitions are being filed challenging the judgments and decrees passed in appeal under the Act. In a given case, where the revision In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 4 of 15

5 petition is allowed in favour of the Landlord and a judgment is passed for eviction of the defendant, in that event there is an eviction decree of the High Court which is required to be executed in accordance with law like any other decree of civil court. 4. It may be noted here that in yet another judgment of this court in the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury & Ors vs- Nilyananda Dutta Banik reported in 1997(II) GLT 590 this court held that even during pendency of the revision petition if it is brought on record by a landlord that the tenant did not pay rent in discharge of its obligation under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, in that event revisional court is entitled to pass a decree for eviction against a tenant. This is because statutory protection has been given to a tenant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 only so long as he pays rent. This is only an example to show that even in a revision petition, the crusade of the landlord for evicting an undesired tenant from the suit premises continues. Normally, appeal is a continuation of suit but the same does not apply to revision petition. But under aforesaid special circumstances, when the trial court judgments and decrees of eviction are considered in a revision petition under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure, the revision appears more like an appeal than an ordinary revision against an interlocutory order. In the case of Ramkaran Das Agarwala vs- Radheshyam Agarwala reported in 1989 GHC 80, a Division Bench of this court has already held that grounds of default In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 5 of 15

6 and bonafide requirement in an eviction suit under Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972 involve jurisdictional facts and so the High Court is required to go into the correctness of such findings of facts. This being the position, in a revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising from a proceeding under Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, the nature of revision petition resembles that of the appeal. Same inference would apply in case of revision petition under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as well. 5. Having noticed as above, it becomes difficult to accept the view expressed by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandradeo Pandey (supra) and judgment of this court in the case of Lilawati Gupta & Ors (supra) that provisions of Order XXII would not apply to a revision petition. In a given case, such a stand may be taken when the revision petition arises from an Interlocutory order but when revision petitions are preferred against the main proceeding such an interpretation may result in prejudice to a party resulting in an anomalous situation which cannot be the purpose of interpretation. This takes us to consider as to whether the law laid down in the case of Lilawati Gupta & Ors ( supra) as well as Chandradeo Pandey (supra) can be made applicable in the present case. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 6 of 15

7 6. It appears that in Order XXII Rule 11, the provisions of order XXII have been made applicable to appeal and it has been provided that in place of plaintiff it will be read as appellant and in case of defendant, it will be read as respondent and in case of suit it will be read as appeal.. Now, what is an appeal? The Code of Civil Procedure has not defined appeal. Such a question came up before the Hon ble Privy Council in the case of Nagendra Nath Dey & anr. vs- Suresh Chandra Dey & Ors reported in (AIR 1932 Privy Council 165). That was a judgment of Hon ble five Judges of the Privy Council and writing the judgment for the Bench, Sir Dinshah Mulla (as His Lordship was at that time) made the following observation: Their Lordships think that nothing would be gained by discussing these varying authorities in detail. They think that the question must be decided upon the plain words of the article: " where there has been an appeal," time is to ran from the date of the decree of the appellate Court. There is, in their Lordships' opinion, no warrant for reading into the words quoted any qualification either as to the character of the appeal or as to the parties to it; the words mean just what they say. The fixation of periods of limitation must always be to some extent arbitrary, and may frequently result in hardship. But in construing such provisions equitable considerations are out of place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is, their Lordships think, the only safe guide. It is at least an intelligible rule that so long as there is any question sub judice between any of the parties, those affected shall not be compelled to pursue the so often thorney path of execution, which, if the final result is against them, may lead to no advantage. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 7 of 15

8 Nor in such a case as this is the judgment-debtor prejudiced. He may indeed obtain the boon of delay, which is so dear to debtors, and if he is virtuously inclined there is nothing to prevent his paying what he owes into Court, But whether there be or be not a theoretical justification for the provision in question, their Lordships think that the words of the article are plain, and that there having been in the present case an appeal from the mortgage decree of Juno 24, 1920, time only ran against the appellants from August 24, 1922, the date of the appellate Court's decree. They are, therefore, in agreement upon this point with the Subordinate Judge, and they think that the order passed by him on August 4, 1924, was right. 16. Their Lordships will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, that the decree of the High Court dated February 16, 1926, should be set aside, and the order of the Subordinate Judge dated August 4, 1924, restored. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 must pay the cost of the appellants in the High Court and before this Board. 7. Subsequently, in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs- Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat reported in (AIR 1970 SC 1) the question came up before the Hon ble Supreme Court as to the nature and character of a revision petition. The Hon ble Supreme Court considered the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Privy Council in the case of Nagendra Nath Dey & anr. vs- Suresh Chandra Dey & Ors (supra) and having made elaborate analysis held the view that a civil revision is only a form of appeal. Even the principle of merger of orders of inferior courts would not become affected or inapplicable by making any distinction between a petition of a revision or an appeal. Section 115 of the In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 8 of 15

9 Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes only the limit of the appellate jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the statute and basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. With these observations, the Hon ble Supreme Court equated a revision petition with an appeal. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar ( supra) and the discussion of the Privy Council in the case of Nagendra Nath Dey (supra) it becomes clear that appeal has nowhere been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and if any proceeding is brought before a superior court which is otherwise a court of appeal challenging any decision of a trial court with a prayer either for revising the same or for setting aside the same in that event it comes under the general classification of appeal. If such an wider connotation of the word appeal is accepted in that event, there is no difficulty in applying Rule 11 Order XXII even in case of revision petition and in that event all the provisions of Order XXII including Rule 9 thereof would become applicable in a revision petition. 9. In the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar ( supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court had considered a decision of the Madras High Court in P.P.P. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 9 of 15

10 Chidambara Nadar vs- C.P.A. Rama Nadar ( AIR 1937 Mad 385) in that case, the Madras High Court faced a question as to whether reference to Article 182 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, relating to the term appeal was used in a restrictive sense so as to exclude revision petitions and the expression appellate court was to be confined to a court exercising appellate, as opposed to revisional power. After an exhaustive examination, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- After an exhaustive examination of case law including the decisions of the privy council mentioned above, the Full Bench expressed the view that Article 180(2) apply to civil revision as well and not only to appeals in the narrower sense of the term as used in the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be an order made or passed in appeal within the meaning of Section 39 of the latters patent. Paragraph-5 of the judgment in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar is quoted below for ready reference: In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 10 of 15

11 5. It would appear that their lordships of the Privy Council regarded the revisional jurisdiction to be a part and parcel of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. This is what was said in Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey 59 I.A. 283, 287. There is no definition of appeal in the CPC, but their Lordship have no doubt that any application by a party to an Appellate Court, asking it to set aside or revise a decision of a subordinate Court, is an appeal within the ordinary acceptation of the term... Similarly in Raja of Ramnad v. Kamid Rowthen and Ors. 53 I.A. 74. a civil revision petition was considered to be an appropriate form of appeal from the judgment in a suit of small causes nature. A full bench of the Madras High Court in P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar v. C.P.A. Rama Nadar and Ors. A.I.R Mad. 385 had to decide whether with reference to Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 the term "appeal" was used in a restrictive sense so as to exclude revision petitions and the expression "appellate court" was to be confined to a court exercising appellate, as opposed to, revisional powers. After an exhaustive examination of the case law including the decisions of the Privy Council mentioned above the full bench expressed the view that Article 182(2) applied to civil revisions as well and not only to appeals in the narrow sense of that term as used in the Civil Procedure Code. In Secretary of State for India in Council v. British India Steam Navigation Company 13 C.L.J. 90. and order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, was held to be an order made or passed in appeal within the meaning of Section 39 of the Letters Patent, Mookerji, J., who delivered the judgment of the division bench referred to the observations of Lord Westbury in Attorney General v. Sillem [1864] 10 H.L.C. 704 and of Subramania Ayyar, J. in Chappan v. Moidin [1898] I.L.R. Mad. 68, 80. on In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 11 of 15

12 the true nature of the right of appeal. Such a right was one of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the court below. Two things which were required to constitute appellate jurisdiction were the existence of the relation of superior and inferior Court and the power on the part of the former to review decisions of the latter. In the well known work of Story on Constitution (of United States) vol. 2, Article 1761, it is stated that the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the legislature may choose to prescribe. According to Article 1762 the most usual modes of exercising appellate jurisdiction, at least those which are most known in the United States, are by a writ of error, or by an appeal, or by some process of removal of a suit from an inferior tribunal. An appeal is a process of civil law origin and removes a cause, entirely subjecting the fact as well as the law, to a review and a retrial. A writ of error is a process of common law origin, and it removes nothing for reexamination but the law. The former mode is usually adopted in cases of equity and admiralty jurisdiction; the latter, in suits at common law tried by a jury. In view of the observation made by the Hon ble Supreme Court as referred to above, the view taken by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Lilawati Gupta & Ors (supra) in paragraph-33 and 35 holding that Order XXII would not apply to civil revision does not appear to be binding on me. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 12 of 15

13 10. Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that provisions of the Code in regard to suit shall be applicable, as far as applicable, in all proceedings of any court of civil jurisdiction. By making specific mention in the Explanation to this section it has been clarified that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not included in this regard. An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, has not been so expressly excluded. Even then in the case of Puran Singh vs- State of Punjab reported in (1996) 2 SCC 205 the Honb le Supreme Court considered applicability of Order XXII in an application under Atvile 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India referring to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hon ble Apex Court held in the case of Bubhri Muljibhai Patel vs- Nandlal Khodidas Banot (AIR 1974 SC 2105) that provisions of the CPC in regard to suits shall be followed in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction as far as it can be made applicable. While the provisions of Order XXII have been thus extended to all civil proceedings there is no reason as to why the same should not apply to a civil revision which is also a proceeding of civil nature. If right to sue survives to legal heir of a deceased party in a Civil Revision, there is no reason either to exclude such legal heirs from the proceedings by not allowing substitution. 11. All these aforesaid aspects including the referred judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court were not brought to the notice to the earlier Single Bench when the judgment in the case of Lilawati Gupta (supra) was passed and In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 13 of 15

14 consequently those judgments could not be considered. Since, there are preponderant pronouncements of the Hon ble Apex Court in the field as stated above, those judgments are bindings on me. 12. I am therefore, constrained to hold that provisions of Order XXII of the Code are applicable to a civil revision. Accordingly, this application filed under Order XXII Rule 4 is taken up for consideration. 13. By filing the application under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, petitioner in the present case has prayed for substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No. 4 ( Srimitikona Roy) who expired on leaving behind her son Abhijit Roy as the sole legal heir. The application has been filed on praying for setting aside abatement of the appeal as the application for substitution has not been filed in time. 14. It is stated in the body of the application that respondent No. 4 was represented by a counsel earlier but the learned counsel did not inform the court about the death of respondent No. 4 in discharge of his liability under Order XXII Rule 10 A of the CPC. Such an information was recently furnished and only thereafter the application could be filed. That being the position, there is sufficient cause for not filing the application in time. In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 14 of 15

15 15. Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the argument put forward by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This being the position, I hold the present petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the substitution petition in time. Accordingly, the abatement of the revision petition is set aside. 16. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Nivedita In CRP No.254 of 2014 Page 15 of 15

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

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

-Versus- THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 406 of 2007

-Versus- THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 406 of 2007 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 406 of 2007 On death of Joynath Gour, his legal heirs are- 1. Smt. Tara Rani Gour, W/O Late Joynath Gour.

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM : NAGALAND : MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA NO. 177/2005 (1) Ashok Kr. Sinha. Son of Late Kalachand Sinha. (2) Sri Budhu Sinha. Son of Late Kalachand

More information

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

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

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT. (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) M.F.A. No. 51 of 2014

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) M.F.A. No. 51 of 2014 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) M.F.A. No. 51 of 2014 1. M/S Jain and Associates registered Office at 9, Old Court, House Street, Kolkata- 700001.

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

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP No. 520 of Smt. Rekha Devi Achantani Respondents

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP No. 520 of Smt. Rekha Devi Achantani Respondents THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP No. 520 of 2015 Radheshyam Jalan Petitioner -Versus- 1. M/s. Triplex. 2. Smt. Rekha Devi Achantani Respondents

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

Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Guwahati Custom Division, Nilomani Phukan Path, Christianbasti, Guwahati - 5

Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Guwahati Custom Division, Nilomani Phukan Path, Christianbasti, Guwahati - 5 1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam : Nagaland: Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Guwahati Custom Division, Nilomani Phukan Path,

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF. (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF. (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No. 1343/2012 Shri Sanjib Saikia, S/o. Late Muhiram Saikia R/o. House No. 12,

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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION No. 4807/2012 Sri Bipul Chandra Barman S/O Late Ananta Barman Vill Mohkhali & P.O. Gopalthan PS-Belsor,

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.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

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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IMPHAL BENCH

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IMPHAL BENCH IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IMPHAL BENCH Writ Petition (Cril) No.49 of 2011 Smti. Hatkhoneng Aged about 53

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

'Stare decisis', amongst High Courts ****** Sunil Ambwani Judge High Court Allahabad Introduction

'Stare decisis', amongst High Courts ****** Sunil Ambwani Judge High Court Allahabad Introduction 'Stare decisis', amongst High Courts ****** Sunil Ambwani Judge High Court Allahabad Introduction 1. The principle of 'stare decisis' (to stand by decided cases) is as old as the establishment of the courts.

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

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

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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 506 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 509 of 2013 With W.P.(S) No. 512 of 2013 MariyamTirkey Petitioner (in WPS No. 506/13) Sudarshan Khakha Petitioner (in

More 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 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

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Writ Appeal No. 273/2014 Md. Imranul Hoque, S/o Shamsul Hoque, Village- Kacharipara, District Nagaon,

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

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI IN THE MATTER OF SEELAN RAJ.... PETITIONER Vs PRESIDING OFFICER 1 ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON BLE COURT IN EXCERSISE

More information

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

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

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P. (C.) No /2009 & CM. No.15749/2009. Date of Decision :

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P. (C.) No /2009 & CM. No.15749/2009. Date of Decision : * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No. 13870/2009 & CM. No.15749/2009 Date of Decision :- 17.02.2010 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & anr.. Petitioners Through Ms. Ruchi

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

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

More information

* IN THE 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: 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

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

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

More information

Reserved on: 7 th August, Pronounced on: 13 th August, # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner

Reserved on: 7 th August, Pronounced on: 13 th August, # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2254/2002 Reserved on: 7 th August, 2009 Pronounced on: 13 th August, 2009 # SAIL EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION...Petitioner! Through: None VERSUS $ STEEL

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

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

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

More information

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 VERSUS 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 SUNIL SAMDARIA... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

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

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

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 (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) W.P. (C) No. 2131/2004 Shri Dwijendra Nath Deka S/o. Late Monmil Ch. Deka R/o. Madhgharia,

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

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3005 of 2005 PETITIONER: Vidyawati

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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 2085/2004

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 2085/2004 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 2085/2004 Sri Amarendra Kumar Singh Son of Sri M.M.P. Singh Technical Assistant,

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 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

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

*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

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 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 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

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 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

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

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 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 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 SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 M/S RURAL COMMUNICATION & MARKETING PVT LTD... Petitioner Through:

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 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 : 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

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 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 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

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

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

More information

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

Cont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013

Cont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013 Cont.Cas(C). No. 18of 2013 HON BLE THE, Shri H.S.Thangkhiew, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri N.Mozika, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Smti. T.Yangi, Advocate, present for the respondents. Learned

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3166 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34719 of 2011) Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami & Anr. Appellant(s) :Versus.:

More 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

% 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

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 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Between: WRIT PETITION No.27925 OF 2012 (LA-RES) Sri.Shambanna

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 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 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 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 W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 44. + W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010 C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR.... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. versus UNION OF

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

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

- 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 Electricity Sector

in Electricity Sector Department of Industrial and Management Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur Forum of Regulators 4 th Capacity Building Programme for Officers of Electricity Regulatory Commissions 18 23 July,

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

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 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. 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 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.

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

More information

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