IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.224 OF 2010
|
|
- Cathleen Gilbert
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF MARCH, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.224 OF 2010 BETWEEN: SRI GANESH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI GOPALKRISHNA SHENOY, RESIDING AT NO.391, 5 TH MAIN, BSK I STAGE, BANGALORE -50. APPELLANT (BY SRI B.C.SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADV.) AND M/S. THE MANAGEMENT OF SHETRON LIMITED, NO.26/3-A, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADV. FOR M/S. S.N.MURTHY ASSTS.) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED PASSED IN O.S.NO.7740/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
2 2 J U D G M E N T Appellant plaintiff is in appeal challenging the correctness and legality of judgment and decree passed by XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.7740/2000 dated , whereunder suit of plaintiff for recovery of money has been dismissed. 2. Heard Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant plaintiff and Sri.Somashekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.S.N.Murthy Associates for respondent defendant. Perused the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as well as records of Trial Court. 3. Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for appellant would contend that Trial Court committed a serious error in dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff by concluding that there is no evidence to prove that plaintiff had issued three months prior notice to defendant before his resignation, on the ground that such an issue never arose and he also contends when
3 3 defendant themselves had paid three months salary by calculating the basic salary and not the gross salary question of plaintiff proving this fact did not arise at all. He would elaborate his submission by contending that Trial Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff had failed to prove that he had 240 days of privilege leave to his credit as on and said finding is contrary to material evidence available on record namely Exhibits P-11 and P-12, which are the salary slips of plaintiff issued by defendant itself for the months of November and December 1999 which would indicate that plaintiff had 244 days of privilege leave to his credit. He would also contend that Trial Court committed an error in holding that under Clause 3 of Personal Policy Manual Revision 05 would govern the plaintiff to arrive at a conclusion that encashment of privilege leave will be based on basic salary, on the ground that said revision has been issued on i.e., after seven months after plaintiff was relieved from services of defendantcompany and as such it was not binding on plaintiff. He
4 4 also submits that no such policy was made known to plaintiff despite his request as per Ex.P.6 letter dated He also contends that Trial Court erred in not considering the contents of Exhibit P-13 namely, the Personnel Policy - Leave Rules Staff Members dated which was the service condition, which was in force on the date on which plaintiff resigned, which provides for calculation required to be adopted for settling retiral benefits. Hence, he contends that based on Exhibit P-13 benefits had to be paid to plaintiff and it was required to be calculated as such and not based on Exhibit P-14, which came into vogue subsequent to plaintiff being relieved from services. As such, he prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and for decreeing the suit as prayed for. 4. Per contra, Sri Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent - defendant would support the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and contends that even as per Exhibit P-13, accumulation of banked leave would be maximum for 90 days period and an
5 5 employee will not be given at any one time PL in excess of 2 years accumulation, but due to oversight the Finance Division of defendant-company calculated the leave encashment by taking into consideration 225 days, which itself was erroneous and as such, excess amount came to be paid to plaintiff and this fact has been brought to the notice of defendant by reply notice dated and as such, he submits that defendant is not entitled for decree towards leave encashment. He would also submit that plaintiff did not demonstrate before Trial Court for having submitted letter of his intention to resign by giving three months notice and as such there is no justification on the part of plaintiff in demanding notice of pay (3 months) and dehors said defence, on humanitarian grounds defendant had paid a sum of ` 40,050/- towards three months notice period of salary by taking into consideration the basic pay and he submits on these grounds a demand for refund of an amount ` 1,26,825/- was made on the defendant by reply notice dated and in order to ensure that
6 6 the ex-employee is not put to any hardship or inconvenience, no counter claim was raised before Trial Court and as such, he contends that judgment and decree passed by Trial Court dismissing the suit does not suffer from any infirmity or call for inference and as such he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, as well as records of Trial Court, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in O.S.No.7740/2000 dated dismissing the suit for recovery of money of ` 1,20,225/- along with interest is to be affirmed reversed, or verified? 2. What order? 6. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in Trial Court. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:
7 7 Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of ` 1,20,225/- along with future 24% p.a. and costs of proceedings contending interalia that he was working as Assistant General Manager in the defendant company and submitted his resignation for the post held by him since he secured a better assignment, which came to be accepted by defendant and plaintiff was relieved from service with effect from ; Plaintiff received a sum of ` 1,47,675/- from the defendant towards full and final settlement payable to him and on going through the statement of accounts, plaintiff noticed that there were certain discrepancies in the calculation, which was not calculated properly and there was a difference of 20 days in EL calculation and that leave encashment benefit was calculated only on the basic pay as against the normal practice of taking all the components into account while calculating the leave encashment benefit. It was also contended that defendant having not paid three months notice period of pay to plaintiff a letter was issued to the defendant to pay the said amount and despite such
8 8 demands, defendant did not settle the amount but gave evasive reply and therefore, legal notice came to be issued, which was denied by defendant and as such plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount of `.1,20,225/- with interest. 7. On service of suit summons respondentdefendant appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, it was contended that as per the Personal Policy Manual Revision-05, Clause 3, employees having completed three years of service are entitled for leave encashment and if leave encashment is for more than 30 days they are required to get the approval of Managing Director or Vice President and on retirement of an employee all banked / frozen leave along with current leave balance and accrued leave till date of relieving would be encashed and for the said purpose of encashment basic salary alone would be considered. It was further contended that said revised rules is effective from calendar year 2000 i.e. January 2000 onwards; Since plaintiff submitted his resignation on
9 9 the Revision 05 i.e, revised rules is applicable to plaintiff; Since he submitted his resignation on as per revised rules applicable, the leave encashment has been granted to plaintiff based on basic salary; It was also contended that plaintiff is not entitled for three months notice pay since he had not produced the notice of resignation; Plaintiff had only 225 days privilege leave in his credit and defendant has paid ` 1,00,125/- and extra leave claimed by plaintiff is false; Plaintiff has received said benefit without protest; On these grounds amongst others raised in the written statement, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties trial Court framed following issues for its determination: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the calculation made by the defendant at the time of final settlement of accounts is erroneous and the defendant is still due in a sum of Rs.1,20,225/-? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the liability of the defendant to pay the suit claim? 3. What order or decree?
10 10 9. Plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced 16 documents and got them marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-16. On behalf of defendant company an Official from HRA department was examined as D.W.1 and three documents were produced and marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-3. Trial Court on evaluation of evidence and considering the pleadings of the parties, dismissed the suit, which is now assailed by the plaintiff in the present appeal. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT: 10. Insofar as claim of plaintiff towards recovery of three months pay is concerned, Trial Court has held that plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that he had issued three months prior notice to defendant company on his submission of resignation and as such he is entitled for said amount. Insofar as claim for payment of wages or salary of 246 days privilege leave to the credit of plaintiff is concerned, Trial Court held that no evidence is produced to show that as on
11 11 plaintiff had 246 days privilege leave to his credit. On these grounds Trial Court has dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 11. In the background of rival contentions raised and evidence tendered by both the parties, it requires to be examined as to whether judgment of Trial Court is to be sustained as per the point formulated hereinabove or otherwise? RE: POINT NO In the present suit the claim of plaintiff is two fold; 1. Privilege leave claim for 246 days on gross salary for a sum of `.90,525/-; (1,90,650-claimed, 1,00,125- paid) 2. Notice of pay (three months) of ` 23,250/-, which is based on gross salary; (claimed- 69,750, paid - 40,050) 13. Perusal of records would undisputedly indicate that defendant company has accepted, granted,
12 12 sanctioned and paid privilege leave to an extent of 225 days and a sum of ` 1,00,125/- is paid to plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 as against plaintiff claim for `.1,90,650/-. Thus, the difference is ` 90,525/-. Insofar as claim for notice period of resignation - 3 months is concerned the records would also indicate that defendant company has paid a sum of ` 40,050/- as per Ex.P.1 as against a claim of `.69,750/- and difference being `.23,250/-. Thus total difference is `.1,20,225/-. Plaintiff came to be relieved from his services on At the time of plaintiff being relieved from services a total sum of ` 1,47,675/- after TDS has been paid to plaintiff as evidenced from Exhibit P-1. A perusal of same would indicate that defendant has accepted the claim of defendant with regard to privilege leave of 225 days as against claim of 246 days. As already noticed hereinabove Trial Court dismissed the claim petition of plaintiff on the ground that no evidence was tendered by plaintiff to demonstrate or establish that plaintiff had 246 days privilege leave to his credit. Said finding is erroneous and contrary to
13 13 records and evidence available on records Exhibits P-11 and 12, which are the salary certificates issued by defendant company to plaintiff would clearly indicate that as on November and December 1999 plaintiff had 244 days of privilege leave to his credit. Two extra days which have been included in the plaint was for the period of 40 days namely 30 days in December 1999 and 10 days in January 2000 and as such finding of the Trial Court that plaintiff had not produced any evidence to show he had 244 days to his credit is contrary to records and evidence available on record and same is liable to be set aside. 14. At this juncture it would be appropriate to deal with the contention of learned counsel appearing for defendant namely defendant was entitled to a maximum accumulation of banked leave only for 90 days as per Clause 2 in the extant rules namely Exhibit P-13 and an employee will not be given at any one time privilege leave in excess of two years accumulation i.e., 30 days. Both these contentions are without merit and cannot be accepted for the reason that the extant regulations or
14 14 rules, which were governing the plaintiff and similarly placed employees of defendant company has been produced as per Exhibit P-13. clause 3 (c) reads as under: C. On retirement of an employee all banked/frozen leave along with current leave balance and accrued leave of financial year till date of relieving will be encashed. For the purposes of encashment Basic, DA & all monthly allowances (excluding vehicle costs & fuel expense if applicable) will be considered. Annual allowance like LTA Bonus, etc will not be considered. Above clause would clearly indicate that on retirement of an employee all banked / frozen leave along with current leave balance and accrued leave of financial year till date of relieving will be encashed and encashment would be based on all the components of salary namely basic pay, DA and monthly allowances (excluding vehicle costs and fuel expenses, if applicable). Said Clause namely Clause 3 (c), which came to be marked as Exhibit P-13 (a) would support the claim of plaintiff. If defendant had paid any excess privilege leave as contended by defendant s counsel not only before this Court but also before Trial
15 15 Court and prior to that at the time of issuing reply notice as per Exhibit P-10, nothing prevented defendant to set up a counter claim in the trial Court. For the reasons best known, they did not choose to do so. In fact, in the cross-examination dated of D.W.1, it is specifically admitted by D.W.1 to the following effect; I am working in the defendant company xxxxxxx in writing. Now I se a document which is personal policy leave rules staff members and the same belongs to the defendant company. The same is marked as Ex.P13. The relevant portion in Ex.P13 is marked as Ex.P13(a). It is true to suggest that Exc.P13 as in existence till The said policy which is at Ex.P13 was renewed subsequently and the policy now shown to me is the renewed policy incorporating the changed terms and conditions and it is marked as Ex.p14. It is true to suggest that in Ex.P14 at clause 3 (c) for the purpose of encashment, basic, DA and all monthly allowances (excluding vehicle cost and fuel expenses if applicable) will be considered. The relevant portion is marked at Ex.P14(a). 15. Insofar as leave encashment is concerned under Exhibit P-14(a) it is only the basic salary which would be considered. Exhibit P-14 came to be issued on retrospectively to be in force from
16 16 onwards. As to whether this Exhibit P-14 can be made applicable to plaintiff would be the question and the answer necessarily has to be in the negative for the reason by the time Exhibit P-14 was issued plaintiff had already been relieved undisputedly on by which time Exhibit P-14 had not come into existence and as such, same cannot be applied to plaintiff under its leave rules, which is enumerated in Exhibit P-13 which would govern the plaintiff, which would clearly indicate that an employee on retirement will be entitled to encash all banked / frozen leaves along with current leave balance and accrued leave and for the purpose of calculation of said encashment, the components of basic pay, DA and all monthly allowances (including vehicle cost and fuel expenses, if applicable) would be considered even according to the defendant and as such, Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the claim of plaintiff. 16. Yet another reason which requires to be noticed by this Court is the fact that defendant having taken a stand in the written statement that plaintiff
17 17 would be entitled only for 90 days encashment leave or 30 days, did not file any counter claim and it also gave a complete go by to its own document Exhibit P-1, whereunder defendant has recognised or accepted the claim of plaintiff for grant of privilege leave and has in fact accepted the plaintiff s claim to an extent of 225 days and granted the same. In other words plaintiffdefendant itself recognised the right of plaintiff is traceable to the extant rules as governed under Exhibit P-13 and not under Exhibit P-14 and as such it settled the claim of plaintiff for 225 days. If really rules under Exhibit P-14 was governing the plaintiff defendant would have rejected claim for 225 days and would have settle the claim for 90 days for 30 days only. In that view of the matter, finding of Trial Court denying the claim of plaintiff cannot be sustained. Insofar as denial for difference in the amount to which plaintiff would be entitled for privilege leave is concerned would be ` 90,525/- (` 1,90,650 ` 1,00,125/-) to which plaintiff is entitled to.
18 Insofar as the second claim is concerned i.e., with regard to notice of pay for three months is concerned, it does not detain this Court for long by allowing the appeal in favour of plaintiff by answering the claim of plaintiff for simple reason that defendant themselves have accepted that plaintiff is entitled for three months notice pay. It is not doubt true that plaintiff did not produce office copy or the copy retained by him for having submitted his resignation letter. When defendant raised a plea about the said notice not being in accordance with extant rules or otherwise namely three months notice having not been given, nothing prevented defendant from producing the same since undisputedly it was in defendant s custody. This exercise was not undertaken by defendant and as such, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by Trial Court. 18. Be that as it may. Defendant themselves have accepted that plaintiff is entitled for three months notice of pay and as such defendant has paid a sum of
19 19 ` 40,050/- as per Exhibit P-1. In other words defendant unequivocally admits that plaintiff is entitled for three months wages. However, it has calculated the wages by taking into consideration only the basic pay and in view of the fact that extant rules as found in Exhibit P-13 would govern the claim of plaintiff and he would be entitled for the suit claim. Rejection of claim of plaintiff for difference in payment i.e., ` 29,700/- by the Trial Court as such is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Hence, Point No.1 requires to be answered in favour of plaintiff - appellant and against defendant-respondent. RE POINT NO.2: 19. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is hereby allowed with cost. ii. Judgment and decree passed by XXX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.7740/2000 dated , is hereby set aside and suit of plaintiff is decreed for sum of ` 1,20,225/- with
20 20 interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till date of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. iii. iv. Registry to draw the decree accordingly. Appellant - plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fee. Registry is hereby directed to refund the admissible court fee forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE DR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO.937/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE DORASWAMY REDDY, AGED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF JUNE 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1348 OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1038 OF
More information: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS. W.P. No /2012 (GM-CPC)
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS BETWEEN: W.P. No. 71556-71559/2012 (GM-CPC) VYSHNAVI
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5290/2009 A/W MFA CROB NO.136/2010 BETWEEN:
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on 06.07.2012 Judgment delivered on 09.07.2012 RFA 669/2003 M/S FIITJEE LTD. AND ANR. Appellants Versus DR. KANWAL
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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. WRIT PETITION Nos /2015 (T-RES)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.8854-8874/2015 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S.PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH R.S.A NO.1090/2011 (DEC/INJ)
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BETWEEN: ON THE 04 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH R.S.A NO.1090/2011 (DEC/INJ) 1. SEENE GOWDA, S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA BETWEEN: M.F.A. NO.2536/2008 (MV) C/w. M.F.A. NO.2535/2008 (MV)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL. R.S.A.No.2061/2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN: DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL R.S.A.No.2061/2012 1. M.M.Thammayya S/o late M.M.Muthanna Aged about
More informationIN 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 information2. Mr.M.Mohammed Amjad, S/o.Late.Dr.M.Mohammed Ghouse, Aged about 37 years,
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR WRIT PETITION No.5070/2015(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Mrs.S.Prasanna, W/o.P.K.Somashekar
More informationThrough Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:
More information- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO. 45305/2011 (L-PG) BETWEEN: C.D ANANDA RAO S/O SRI DALAPPA AGED
More information.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004
.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE. CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626 OF 2014
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626 OF 2014 BETWEEN: G.Suresh, S/o. Ganeshan,
More information$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus
$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1008/2013 KRISHAN LAL ARORA Through: Versus Date of Pronouncement: August 14, 2015... Plaintiff Dr. N. K. Khetarpal, Adv. GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 01 st DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.No.2/2010 BETWEEN: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2/2010 C/W. REGULAR FIRST
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR RFA NO 483 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA RSA NO.5663 OF 2010(PAR)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03 RD DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA BETWEEN: RSA NO.5663 OF 2010(PAR) 1. NARAYAN S/O ISHWAR HEGDE AGE:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI. R.F.A.No.1767 OF 2012 (INJ)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI R.F.A.No.1767 OF 2012 (INJ) BETWEEN: Smt.Sarvamangala L.M., D/o
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN: DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JULY 2014 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH Regular First Appeal No.958
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA M.F.A.NO.3425/2000
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA M.F.A.NO.3425/2000 BETWEEN: G R SHIVASHANKAR, PRESIDENT K.S & D.N EMPLOYEES'
More informationN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA R.S.A. NO.1710 OF 2005
1 N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 B E F O R E THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA R.S.A. NO.1710 OF 2005 BETWEEN: 1. Subappa, 1(a) Prabhuswamy,
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 MRS VEENA JAIN... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. Present THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR. And THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 6 th day of August 2012 Present THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR And THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA Miscellaneous First Appeal
More informationThrough : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.284/2006
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B BETWEEN: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.284/2006 Mukdum Sab, S/o. Kasimsab,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3219 OF 2006
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3219 OF 2006 1. SRI ABDUL GHANI
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA. M.F.A.NO.20063/2011 (MV) C/w. M.F.A. CROB.NO.
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA IN MFA NO.20063/2011 BETWEEN: M.F.A.NO.20063/2011 (MV) C/w. M.F.A.
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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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 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. 149/2000 1. Musstt. Sufia Khatun, W/O Late Danish Ali. 2. Md. Mintu Sheikh alias
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1751/2006 BETWEEN: Sri H. Isoob Sab
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.481/2016 BETWEEN: SRI H.ANANDA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : DATE OF DECISION:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : 27-02-2007 DATE OF DECISION: 05-03-2007 TRISTAR CONSULTANTS... Petitioner through: Mr.M.S.Ganesh,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ON THE 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH Writ Petition No. 20807 of 2010 (S-KAT)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2/2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2/2012 BETWEEN: SRI.K.L.KHURANA AGED ABOUT 70
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.No.1914/2007 c/w R.F.A.No.756/2008
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008. RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND RECOVERY CS(OS) 2130/2003 & IA 3947/2008 RESERVED ON: December 4, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 08, 2009 Mrs.Pushpa Kakkar & Another...
More informationCrl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017
Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 31.07.2017 Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nava Kumar Kalita, learned Additional Public
More information*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI 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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH BETWEEN Dated this the 18 th day of September, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V. PINTO Criminal Appeal No.3655/2009 JEETENDRANATH S/O BABU RAO HERUR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1373/2012 (PAR)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1373/2012 (PAR) BETWEEN Veerabadrappa, S/o. Late
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.137/2011. DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.137/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 4th March, 2011 NARESH KUMAR SAINI Through: Appellant Mr. S.P.Jha, Adv. VERSUS DAYA RANI DIXIT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. CA No.969/2015 IN COP NO.84/2012 BETWEEN:
1/5 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI CA No.969/2015 IN COP NO.84/2012 BETWEEN: RASHMI THAKERIA PROMOTER-SHAREHOLDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.
More informationTHE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. RSA No. 106 of Smt. Mailata Talukdar, W/O Lt. Madhab Talukdar.
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 106 of 2003 1. Smt. Mailata Talukdar, W/O Lt. Madhab Talukdar. 2. Sri Amarendra Talukdar, S/O Lt. Madhab
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Page No.1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 6 OF 2003 Rupan Kishan S/O- Lt. Ganesh Kishan, Vill- Potabill, Mouza-Orang, P.O- Shillong Khuti,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA. WRIT PETITION No.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9 th DAY OF JULY 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA WRIT PETITION No.27749/2015(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. A.M SATYANARAYANA,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN W.P.NO.29574/2015(S-RES)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3 RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN W.P.NO.29574/2015(S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. IRANNA KESARALLI S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : 25th May, 2006 Date of decision : July 27th, 2006 RFA No. 139/2005 Sh. Ajay Kumar Grover... Appellant through
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006 Date of decision : December 20, 2007 M/S ARINITS SALES PVT. LTD.... PLAINTIFF
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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2705 OF 2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2705 OF 2015 BETWEEN:- G.V. SHANTHARAJ, S/O
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA BETWEEN WRIT PETITION NO.85369/2013 (GM-RES) ASHOK KADAPPA JADAGOUD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5144 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5144 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRI SURENDRA BABU R S/O SRI
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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.7/2014 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment : 27.4.2011 R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No. 17688/2006 (for stay) SH. MOHD. TAJ Through:..Appellant Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN WRIT APPEAL NO.2828
More 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) RSA No.74 of 2001 On the death of the appellant, Mustt. Anowara Bewa, the following
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B BETWEEN: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2686/2009 M.R.ACHUT KUMAR S/O M RAMAKRISHNA
More informationPrasenjit Mandal, J.:
CIVIL REVISION Present : The Hon ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal Judgment on 25.08.2010 C.O. No. 4446 of 2007 Shyam Kishor Sahu Versus Ajit Kumar Das. Points: Evidence- Evidence closed as per the order
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No(s) OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No(s) OF 2016)
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 10062-10064 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No(s).34745-34747 OF 2016) GOPAL NAGAR COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE WRIT PETITION NO.48728/2012 (GM-CPC)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION NO.48728/2012 (GM-CPC) 1. SRI NANJUNDASWAMY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.95/2010. DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.95/2010 DATE OF DECISION : 17th January, 2012 SANT RAM MANGAT RAM JEWELLERS Through: Ms. Sumita Kapil, Advocate.... Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN. Writ Petition Nos /2017 (T-IT)
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition Nos.1339-1342/2017 (T-IT) Between : Flipkart
More informationM/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment Reserved on: January 07, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: January 10, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2340/2008 & I.A. No.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY C.M.P. NO.178/2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY BETWEEN: C.M.P. NO.178/2013 M/S. STERLING & WILSON LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO OF 2014 (GM-CPC)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.38461 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2642/2009
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR BETWEEN M/S PREETI IMPLEX REGD PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY ITS PARTNERS
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MFA NO.21806/2012 (AA) C/W MFA NOS.21807, 21808, 21809,
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 information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, 2015 + I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 VEENA KUMARI Through... Plaintiff Mr.D.S. Vohra, Adv.
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 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE: THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY BETWEEN: COMPANY PETITION No.190 OF 2010 Nuziveedu Seeds Private Limited,
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.458/2008 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 MUKESH KUMAR DECD. THR. LR'S and ANR.... Appellants Through: Mr.K.G.Chhokar,
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
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: Md. Anowar Hussain & others Jamal Uddin & others -Versus- Appellants... Respondents BEFORE :: HON BLE
More informationR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS. CRIMINAL PETITION No. 979/2012
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS CRIMINAL PETITION No. 979/2012 BETWEEN: ---------------- Sri.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Date of Decision: CRL.A of 2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Date of Decision: 06.03.2014 CRL.A. 1011 of 2013 S.K. JAIN... Appellant Mr. Ajay K. Chopra, Adv. versus VIJAY KALRA... Respondent
More informationREGISTERED CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AT KASUMPTI SHIMLA-9 No. CGRF/Comp. No. 1453/1/17/005
REGISTERED CONSUMERS GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM AT KASUMPTI SHIMLA-9 No. CGRF/Comp. No. 1453/1/17/005 Dated:- KBM Food Product, V/s. HPSEBL & Others. Complaint No 1453/1/17/005 1. KBM Food Product, 2.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7843 OF 2009 CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, APPELLANT(s) SRI RAM MANDIR JAGTIAL KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, A.P VERSUS S. RAJYALAXMI
More information