In CRP No.254 of Versus-
|
|
- Pierce Sullivan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.7207 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.352 of 2008] J U D G M E N T
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7207 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.352 of 2008] James Joseph Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent J U D G
More informationJ U D G M E N T A N D O R D E R (ORAL)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH: AIZAWL Sh. Rev. Thangluaia S/o L.K. Siama(L) Bawngkawn, Aizawl. -Vs- C.R.P. (Art. 227) 12 of 2012
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) Review. Pet. 155/2013 In WP(C) 3838/10 With WP(C) 520/11 1. Sri Ghana Pegu Son of late Gomeswar Pegu Resident
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Appeal No.201 of 2011. Appellant : Sri Dharma Oja alias Dharma Kanta Oja,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 380 of 2014 M/S Shriram Transport Finance
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 17 of 2017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. KANHAIYA LAL KANKANI CRP 17 of 2017 2. SMT. RAJ KUMARI KANKANI..Petitioners -Versus- 1. AMBIKA SUPPLY AND SERVICES
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 329 of 2000 On the death of Rajmangal Dubey
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: Babulal Choudhury and others Appellants -Versus- Ganesh Chandra Bharali and another... Respondents
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RSA NO. 156/2005 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 156/2005 Sri Pramendra Bijoy Roy, S/o Late Ramesh Chandra Roy, Silchar Road (Hailakandi
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A. (Civil) 82/2016 In MAC APP SL. NO. 272049, I.A. (C) /2016, CAVT. 410/2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Mizoram & Arunachal. Pradesh)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA 290 of 2010 1. Nandlal Rajbhore, Son of late Raj Narayan Rajbhore, 2. Smti Madia Rajbhore, 3. Smti Sadiya
More informationJUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 08/2013 1. Manoj Lala, son of Late Mohanlal Lala, R/o. Central Road, Silchar, PO & PS- Silcahr, District-
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 1. SMTI. TETERI DEVI, Wife of Late Mohendra Harizon. 2. SHRI RAMANANDA HARIZON, Son of Late Mohendra
More informationThrough: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 29th January, 2014 LPA 548/2013, CMs No.11737/2013 (for stay), 11739/2013 & 11740/2013 (both for condonation
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8444/2011 Date of Decision: 29 th September, 2015 REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY... Petitioner Through Mr.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WP(C) No of Versus-
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WP(C) No. 5648 of 2009 Sri Swapan Kumar Dey S/o late Jogesh Chandra Dey, R/o Nagadolong, P.O. & P.S. Namrup,
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Sri Rajesh Jaiswal, S/o Sri Radha Raman Jaiswal, Resident of Thana Back Road, Ward No. 11, New Amolapatty, Golaghat-785621.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)
Review Petition No. 73/2013 (Arising out of Misc. Case No. 705/2013 In FAO 6/2013) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5903 OF Smt. Sudama Devi & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5903 OF 2012 Smt. Sudama Devi & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS Vijay Nath Gupta & Anr. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay
More informationCRP 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 informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Petition No. 535 of 2011 1. M/S Brahmaputra Iron & Steel Company Pvt.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21548/2013 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. A MANJUNATH
More informationRFA. No. 38/ Versus- PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY. : Mr. GN SAhewalla, Sr.Adv.Ms. J Barua Adv. Adv. RFA No.18 of 2008 Page 1 of 13
Smti Tanuja Baruah Prof.of M/S Borsons Asia Borbheta Bongali Gaon PO Monkholi PS Bordubi Dist-Tinsukia, IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA.
More informationCRP 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 informationThrough Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate with petitioner in person. VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : FORTY SECOND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 Writ Petition (C) No. 2231/2011 Judgment reserved on: 6th April, 2011 Date of decision : 8th April, 2011 D.K. SHARMA...Petitioner
More informationCRP No. 369 / S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya. S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Shri Vinit Tibrewala Son of Late Radheshyam tibrewala Main Road, Tezpur Town PO Tezpur Mouza-Mahabhairab Dist-Sonitput,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 2842 of 2015 Md. Sahid Ali, S/o. Late Akbar Ali, R/o. Village- nmerapani Fareshtablak, P.S.- Merapani,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) No.2855 of 2010 Ramesh Goswami Writ Petitioner
More informationCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 331/2008
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 331/2008 1. SMTI. PRATIMA RANI DEY, W/O. LATE BABUL DEY, 2. SRI BISWAJIT DEY [MINOR],
More informationCivil Revision Petition No. 118/2009 -VERSUS-
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Civil Revision Petition No. 118/2009 1. Md. Iman Ali, 2. Md. Abdul Basar, Both are sons of Late Ahmed Ali, 3. Msstt.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. C.O. No. 136 of 2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O. No. 136 of 2015 In the matter of : Sri Sushanta Malik @ Susanta Malik Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Limited and Anr. B E F
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 2973/2006 Sri Ajit Kumar Kakoti Lecturer, Son of Late Padmadhar Kakoti, Assam Textile
More informationCriminal Revn No. 4(SH) of 2009.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) SHILLONG BENCH Criminal Revn No. 4(SH) of 2009. Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta S/o (L) JS
More informationReview Petition No.116/2015 In Arb. Pet. No.17/2013 (D/O). 1. The Gauhati Municipal Corporation. Panbazar, Guwahati.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Review Petition No.116/2015 In Arb. Pet. No.17/2013 (D/O). 1. The Gauhati Municipal Corporation Panbazar, Guwahati,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition No of 2016
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition No. 1246 of 2016 Shri Abdul Kadir Mazumdar, Son of late Basir Uddin Mazumdar, Village Uttar Krishnapur,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR,
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 3522/2000 1. Dhansiri Valley Project Oil and Natural Gas Commission
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.55/2004
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam: Nagaland: Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.55/2004 1. Smti Jaya Handique, W/o. Late Dimbeswar Handique, 2. Sri Pradip Handique, 3. Sri Bipul Handique,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MEGHALAYA: MANIPUR: TRIPURA: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Petition No. 255 of 2010 Smt Roltong Singpho, Wife of Sri C C Singpho,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Writ Petition (C) No.606 of 2016
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.606 of 2016 Sri Bhabesh Das Son of Late Dhruba Das Vill Kulhati, No.2 Hidalghurisupa Police
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015 Madhusudan Mandal, Residing at 35E Mahanirban Road, Ground Floor, Post Office- Gariahat, Kolkata-700029,
More informationCRP 210 of Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Musstt. Saheda Begum Gopal Shah Versus Petitioners Respondents BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA For
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2009 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6323 OF 2008) Radhey Shyam & Another...Appellant(s) - Versus - Chhabi Nath
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1576 of 2013
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1576 of 2013 1. Sri Krishna Deb Nath, S/o. Late Ramani Deb 2. Smti. Maloti Deb Nath,W/o. Sri Krishna Deb
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Rahmat Ali, S/o Md. Hafizatddin 2. Smti. Nazma Rahman, W/o Md. Rahmat Ali, Both are residents
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 3307/2005
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 3307/2005 Md. Intajur Rahman Laskar, S/o. Md. Siddique Ali Laskar, Vill- Banskandi Part-III, P.O.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon ble The Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya. AND The Hon ble Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. MAT 901 of 2016
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010. Reserved on:18th May, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010 Reserved on:18th May, 2011 Decided on: 8th July, 2011 JAGMOHAN ARORA... Petitioner
More information-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 informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 27 of M/s Humanoid Laboratories,
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 27 of 2004 1. M/s Humanoid Laboratories, Represented by its proprietor Shri Bipul Baruah, S/o Shri Bhaben
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) C.R.P. NO. 328/2016 Sri Mohini Gohain Baruah & another..petitioner -Vs- Smt. Putali Gohain Baruah & another.respondents
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 357 of 2016 Lakhi Rani Das, Wife of Late Subhash Das, R/o village- Salpara, Molandubi, P.S.- Krishnai,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Criminal Petition No. 359 of 2017 1. Sri Bijay Kumar Jalan, Son of Ramawatar Jalan, C/O Ganesh Narayan Gowardhan
More informationIN 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 informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 172/2000 Smt. Ranamaya Chetri, W/O late Chandra Bahadur Chetri, resident of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA
More informationIN 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 Petition (C) No. 1961 of 2010 Smt. Padma Rani Mudai Hazarika - Versus - - Petitioner Union of India
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.50029/2013 & 51586/2013 (CS-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI H RAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O
More informationMAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) MAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Md. Nur Mohammad & ors. Versus Appellants Respondents BEFORE HON
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +CM Nos.7694-95/2010 (for restoration of CM No.266/2010 and for condonation of delay in applying for the same) in W.P.(C) 4165/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd June,
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA 9/2008 Sri Mrinal Kanti Dey, S/o- Shri Mohit Lal Dey, Resident of Circular Path, Rukmininagar, PO-Assam Sachivalaya,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Date of decision: 2ndJuly, 2014 LPA No.390/2014 BELA RANI BHATTCHARYYA.. Appellant Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattacharya & Mr. Niloy Dasgupta,
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 4022/2016 Sri David Brahma Son of Sri Biraj Brahma Resident of Kahilipara Journalist Colony Dakhin
More informationMr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) 6392/2007 & CM Appl.12029/2007 Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Decided on: 1st August, 2012 MOHD. ISMAIL Through:... Petitioner Mr.
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No.8368 of 2003 1. Smti. Lilawati Neog Wife of Sri Roma Neog, 2.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on:09.02.2011 Decided on: 18.02.2011 WOLLAQUE VENTILATION & CONDITIONING PVT LTD. Appellant Through: Mr.
More informationState Of A.P vs V. Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 November, 2006
Supreme Court of India State Of A.P vs V. Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 November, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1136 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of A.P.
More informationWrit Appeal No.45 of 2014
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM) Writ Appeal No.45 of 2014 Appellant: The State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.761/2003 (PAR).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.761/2003 (PAR). Between: 1 Sri M.Narayana, S/o
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA(OS) No. 70/2008. Reserved on : December 12th, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA(OS) No. 70/2008 Reserved on : December 12th, 2008 Date of Decision : December 19th, 2008 Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Ors.... Appellants
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff
More informationIN THE 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 ) RSA No. 58 of 2005 1) Smti Chandra Sakhi Singha, Wife of Sri Horendra Singha, Village & P.O.- Borjalenga,
More informationWRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233O OF 2006
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND;MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 233O OF 2006 Sri Kajal Kumar Paul, Son of Late Rajkukar Paul, Resident of Santipara, Saratpalli,
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 94 of 2017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP 94 of 2017 ATOWAR RAHMAN KALACHAN SHEIKH & 2 ORS. -Versus-..Petitioner..Respondents BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.
More informationIN THE 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 informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) RSA No. 149 of 2006 APPELLANTS: 1. On the death of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No of 2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3482 of 2014 Balwinder Singh, son of late Bahadur Singh Nagi, Resident of Katras Road, PS Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad s/o Sardar Rawal Singh, R/o Gurunanakpur,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 6094 of 2012 Laxmi Narain Bhagat... Petitioner Versus Naresh Prasad & others..... Respondents For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar For the Respondents
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam,Nagaland,Meghalaya,Manipur, Tripura,Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) MIZORAM BENCH
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam,Nagaland,Meghalaya,Manipur, Tripura,Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) MIZORAM BENCH Civil Revision Petition No. 10 of 2011 Smti Zadingliani d/o Vanlalhluna
More informationIN 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 (C) No. 1855/2008 1. The Workman represented by the Secretary, Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Jorhat
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Page 1 of 15 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) NO.4448/2007 1. Sri Abhiram Pegu, S/o Damodar Pegu, R/O- Nalipipar, P.O & P.S- Dhemaji, District-
More informationUnion 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 informationThrough: Mr. Deepak Khosla, Petitioner in person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESERVED ON: 12.09.2014 PRONOUNCED ON: 12.12.2014 REVIEW PET.188/2014, CM APPL.5366-5369/2014, 14453/2014 IN W.P. (C) 6148/2013
More information[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT )] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[Abstract prepared by the PCT Legal Division (PCT-2017-0001)] Case Name: TRYTON MEDICAL INC. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS Jurisdiction: HIGH COURT OF DELHI (INDIA) Abstract: The petitioners entered the national
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C) No. 4088/2014 Sri Dibyajyoti Kaushik, Son of Sri Santanu Baruaha,
More informationWrit Appeal No.43 of 2016
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM) Writ Appeal No.43 of 2016 Appellant: State of Assam, represented by its Commissioner and Special Secretary to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF: ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA &
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1140/2015 & WP(C) 2945/2015. Sri Vidyut Bikash Bora
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 1140/2015 & WP(C) 2945/2015 Sri Vidyut Bikash Bora -Vs-...Petitioner M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2018)
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3873 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.32456 of 2018) Sevoke Properties Ltd. Appellant Versus West Bengal State
More informationThrough :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. Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: December 11, 2014 + W.P.(C) 8200/2011 RAJENDER SINGH... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION No.13520 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) Smt. Narayanamma,
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2017 M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS VERSUS O R D E R
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8984-8985 OF 2017 M/S LION ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014 Pronounced on: 03.02.2015 PRINCE KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Tarun Kumar Tiwari, Mr.Mukesh Sukhija, Ms.Rupali
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.29 OF Petitioners/Defendant Nos.2 to 9.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.29 OF 2017 1. Sri Nitesh Ghosh, Son of Late Narendra Nath Ghosh. 2. Sri Ashim Saha, Son of Sri Ajit Kr. Saha.
More informationCivil Revision PRESENT: THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE Judgment on:
Civil Revision PRESENT: THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE Judgment on: 29.01.2010. C.O. NO. 3691 OF 2008 Kallol Kumar Das Vs. Kanan Bala Das & Ors. Point: New Connection: A tenant against whom a
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANANDA. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.402 OF 2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN: DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.402 OF 2012 1. M/S ICDS LTD MANIPAL REPRESENTED
More information