THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No."

Transcription

1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 149/ Musstt. Sufia Khatun, W/O Late Danish Ali. 2. Md. Mintu Sheikh alias Wajidur Rahman. 3. Md. Milik Sheikh alias Minar Ali. 4. Md. Mojamil Hoque. Sl. Nos.2, 3 and 4 are sons of late Danish Ali. All are residents of Village-Ghopeli, Mouja-Dipila, PS-Sipajhar, Dist.-Darrang, Assam. -Versus- 1. Md. Bhoimuddin Sheikh alias Ahmed, S/O late Haji Eba Sheikh. 2. Md. Nabiruddin Sheikh alias Ahmed, S/O Bhoimuddin Sheikh. Plaintiffs/Appellants. Both are residents of Village-Ghopeli, Mouja-Dipila, PS-Sipajhar, Dist.-Darrang, Assam. Defendants/Respondents. Advocate(s) for the Appellants : Mr. B.K. Ghose, Mr. N. Chakraborty, Mr. C. Goswami. Advocate(s) for the Respondents : Md. A. Hussain, Mr. S. Baruah, Mr. C. Bhattacharyya. BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Date of Hearing : Date of Judgment & Order :

2 2 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This appeal by the plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang, in Title Appeal No.5/1998, allowing the appeal preferred by the present respondents/defendants by setting aside the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Mangaldoi, Darrang, in Title Suit No.55/1981, whereby and whereunder, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants instituted the Title Suit No.55/1981 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, praying for a decree for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession as well as for declaration that a gift deed dated allegedly executed by Haji Eba Sheikh in favour of the respondents/defendants is fraudulent, void and inoperative, contending inter alia that out of 21 bighas 15 lechas of land belonging to Haji Eba Sheikh, the grand-father of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3, 15 bighas 15 lechas of land in different Dags in Patta Nos.19(old) and 13(new) of village-ghopeli, Mouja-Dipila, in the District-Darrang, was sold by the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 by a registered deed of sale dated (Ext.-1), which land was kept by him after giving respective shares to other sons, namely, the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, they

3 3 were put in the possession of the land after such sale. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 by strength of a gift deed dated (Ext.-Ka) allegedly executed by Haji Eba Sheikh, their father, is claiming the right, title and interest over the land and on tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land, however, without any success. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that though an order of status quo was passed by the High Court in the revision petition filed, arising out of an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the defendants dispossessed them after passing of such order, an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed apprehending breach of peace, wherein an order of attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, who consequently vide order dated passed in Misc. Case No.392/1982 declared the possession of the disputed land in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly the plaintiffs were put back into possession. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit praying for the decree as aforesaid. The plaintiffs, however, afterwards filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the prayer in the plaint to the effect that in case the plaintiffs are not found to be in possession then the decree for recovery of khash possession is to be passed. Such prayer for amendment was allowed.

4 4 3. The defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance and contested the suit by filing joint written statement, denying the execution of the sale deed by Haji Eba Sheikh on and also the delivery of possession, with the further pleadings that the land measuring 16 bighas, which includes the suit land was transferred by Haji Eba Sheikh, the original owner of the land, to them by a registered deed of gift dated (Ext.-Ka) and also delivered the possession and as such they are in possession. The defendants have also filed the counter claim for declaring the order dated passed in Misc. Case No.392/1982 by the learned Executive Magistrate, declaring the possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs, as fraudulent and void. 4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for consideration and decisions:- 1) Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit properly valued? 3) Whether the suit can run in its present form? 4) Whether the defendant No.3 sold out the suit land to the plaintiff on and whether the sale deed is forged and fraudulent as alleged by the defendants? 5) Whether the gift deed No.7096 dated purportedly executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1 is fraudulent, collusive and void in law as alleged by the plaintiffs?

5 5 6) Whether the final order dated passed by the Executive Magistrate in Misc. Case No.392/1982 is liable to be declared void and inoperative in law? 7) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? 8) To what reliefs, the parties are entitled? Addl. Issue: Whether the suit land has been properly valued and whether the plaintiffs have paid the proper court fee? 5. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their plea taken in the plaint has examined 4(four) witnesses and proved a number of documents including the sale deed dated (Ext.-1). The defendants have also examined 3(three) witnesses in support of their pleadings in the written statement and also proved a number of documents including the gift deed dated (Ext.-Ka). The witnesses were duly cross-examined by the respective parties. 6. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated by holding that the plaintiffs could prove the right, title and interest over the suit land by proving the registered sale deed being Ext.-1 and though the defendants claimed their right, title and interest over the said land by virtue of a gift deed dated (Ext.-Ka), the same could not be proved as none of the attesting witnesses were examined, though Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act

6 6 requires examination of at least one attesting witness. The learned Trial Court has further held that after the sale of the land by the original owner in favour of the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated (Ext.- 1), Haji Eba Sheikh ceased to have any right over the said land to make a valid gift in favour of the defendants. The contention of the defendants that the final order dated passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. declaring possession in favour of the plaintiffs as fraudulent and invalid had also been rejected by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court having found the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land confirmed their possession and issued the permanent injunction, as prayed for. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred Title Appeal No.5/1998 before the learned First Appellate Court, which has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated , by holding that though the plaintiffs could prove the sale deed dated by exhibiting the same as Ext.-1, the contents of the said sale deed has not been proved, as neither the vendor nor the attesting witnesses have been examined. It has further been held that the sale deed being required to be attested by the attesting witnesses under the law, the same could not be proved by the plaintiffs, as none of the attesting witnesses has been examined as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further finding of the learned First Appellate Court is that there being no partition of the land, the suit of the plaintiff

7 7 for declaration of right, title and interest without praying for a decree for partition is not maintainable. It has also been held that though the defendants could not prove the gift deed dated (Ext.-Ka), since the parties are governed by Mohammedan Law, the ingredients to constitute a valid oral gift under the Mohammedan Law have been proved and hence the defendants have acquired right, title and interest by virtue of oral gift. The learned First Appellate Court has also declared the order dated passed by the learned Executive Magistrate declaring the possession in favour of the plaintiffs as invalid, on the ground that such a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. ought to have been entertained by the learned Executive Magistrate during pendency of the Civil suit. Hence the present appeal. 8. The appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated on the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi misconceived the law relating to the mode of proof of a document and held wrongly that the contents of a document can be proved by examining the executant only and in no other way ignoring the provision of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act? (ii) Whether the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang, committed serious illegality by holding that

8 8 the sale deed is to be proved by examining an attesting witness u/s 68 of the Indian Evidence Act only? (iii) Whether the defendants having failed to prove the gift allegedly made by registered deed of gift (E- Ka ) by not examining the attesting witness the learned lower appellate court committed grave illegality by passing his finding on the evidence of oral Mohammedan gift which was not pleaded in the written statement? 9. I have heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the respondents are represented by the learned counsel Md. A. Hussain, Mr. S. Baruah and Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, who have filed the power on and their names are reflected in the cause list, none has appeared today to argue the case on behalf of the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants referring to the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court has submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has committed error in holding that the plaintiffs could not prove the contents of the sale deed, only on the ground that the vendor of the said sale deed has not been examined, though the same was a registered document and marked as exhibit. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that it is not always necessary to examine the vendor to prove the contents of the sale deed as the same can be proved by adducing other evidence

9 9 including the vendee and in the instant case one of the witnesses to the sale deed as well as the writer of the deed apart from the mother of the plaintiffs, who were the minors, who were examined in the suit as witnesses have categorically stated about the transfer of the suit land by Haji Eba Sheikh in favour of the plaintiffs by such sale deed being Ext.-1. Referring to Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been submitted that when the signature of the vendor has been proved and the petition writer, who was examined as PW-1, has also proved that the contents of the said sale deed was read over to the vendor, who accepted the same to be correct, the learned First Appellate Court ought not to have held that the plaintiffs could not prove the contents of the sale deed being Ext Mr. Chakraborty further submits that since the sale deed is not required to be attested by any witness, under the law, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requiring proof of such document by examining at least one attesting witness, is not applicable, which aspect of the law has completely been ignored by the learned First Appellate Court, while holding that the plaintiffs could not prove the due execution of the sale deed (Ext.-1) by examining at least one attesting witness, in view of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel it is being the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as the evidence in that respect having been led that though the original owner had more than 21 bighas of land, he had

10 10 given certain portion of land to the defendants keeping the suit land with the original owner, the learned Court below ought not to have held that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without there being any claim for partition, more so when it is not being the defendants case that the land was not partitioned. 12. Relating to the third substantial question of law formulated, Mr. Chakraborty submits that since it is the pleaded case of the defendants in the written statement that they got the suit land by virtue of the gift deed dated (Ext.-Ka), the learned lower Appellate Court ought not to have held that there was a valid oral gift made by Haji Eba Sheikh in favour of the defendants, on the basis of the evidence adduced by them, such evidence is being contrary to the pleading, cannot be taken into consideration. According to the learned counsel, the defendants though pleaded that there was a registered gift executed in their favour by the original owner on (Ext.-Ka), the said gift deed could not be proved as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, they having failed to examine at least one attesting witness though they are admittedly alive and subject to the process of the Court as well as capable of giving evidence. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the materials available on record including the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below.

11 As noticed above, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring the right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the sale deed being Ext.-1. The contention of the defendants that they acquired the right, title and interest by the gift being Ext.-Ka has been rejected by the learned Trial Court, as none of the attesting witnesses was examined to prove due execution of the gift deed as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Appellate Court, however, reversed such findings on the ground that the plaintiffs though have proved the sale deed being Ext.-Ka, it doesn t amount to the proof of the contents of the documents, in the absence of the examination of the vendor and such sale deed also could not be proved as none of the attesting witnesses has been examined as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. It appears from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the evidences adduced by the plaintiffs that the land measuring 21 bighas 15 lechas was originally belonged to Haji Eba Sheikh, grand-father of the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 and during his lifetime he gave certain land to the defendant Nos.1 and 2, his sons, keeping 15 bighas 15 lechas of land with him, which land he has transferred for a valuable consideration to the plaintiffs, the minor sons of his predeceased son. The plaintiffs, thus, could establish that the total land measuring 21 bighas 15 lechas was delivered, out of which 15

12 12 bighas 15 lechas of land was with Haji Eba Sheikh. In view of the above, the learned Appellate Court ought not to have held that there was no partition of the land and therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable without the prayer for passing a decree for partition. 16. The learned First Appellate Court, it appears from the impugned judgment and decree passed, has held that though the sale deed (Ext.-1) has been admitted in evidence by marking the same, it does not amount to proof of the contents of the said document. According to the learned First Appellate court, the plaintiffs could not prove the contents of the documents as the vendor has not been examined. It is always not necessary that the contents of the document has to be proved by examining the vendor only. In the case in hand, the plaintiffs apart from examining the scribe (PW-1), has also examined one witness to the sale deed (PW-2) as well as the mother of the plaintiffs as PW-3. All these witnesses have stated about the contents of the documents. The thumb impressions of the vendor in such sale deed being Ext.-1 have also been duly proved as required under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. 17. Moreover, Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that after presentation of a document for registration on compliance of the requirement, the registering authority shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word registered, together with the number

13 13 and page of the book in which the document has been copied. Subsection (2) thereof stipulates that such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in manner provided by the Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsement, referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned. 18. Section 59 of the Registration Act provides that the registering officer shall affix the date and his signature to all endorsements made under Sections 52 and 58, relating to the same document and made in his presence on the same day. Section 58 of the said Act requires endorsement of the signature and addition of every person admitting the execution of the document, and, if such execution has been admitted by the representative, assign or agent of any person, the signature and addition of such representative, assign or agent; the signature and addition of every person examined in reference to such document under any of the provisions of this Act; and any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of the registering officer in reference to the execution of the document, and any admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence in reference to such execution.

14 It appears from the Ext.-1 sale deed dated that the registering authority has endorsed the due execution of the sale deed by the vendor, who admitted the contents of the same and put his signature. Therefore, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of due execution of such document as well as the contents thereof. Moreover, as noticed above, the plaintiffs by examining PWs-1, 2 and 3 could prove the contents of the documents and also the thumb impression of the vendor. That being the position, the plaintiffs could prove the contents of the documents. 20. One of the grounds on which the learned First Appellate Court has held that the due execution of Ext.-1 sale deed could not be proved by the plaintiffs, is that none of the attesting witnesses, as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been examined, though according to the learned Court below such sale deed is required by law to be attested. 21. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. It also provides that such transfer, in case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. It is not the requirement of law that the sale deed is to be attested by any

15 15 attesting witness so as to prove the due execution by examining at least one attesting witness. 22. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides how a document, required to be attested by law, is to be proved. It provides that such a document is to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. The proviso to Section 68 stipulates that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. A sale deed being not required by law to be attested, the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable and hence the finding of the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs could not prove due execution of the sale deed (Ext.-1) by examining an attesting witness cannot be sustained in law. 23. The learned First Appellate Court has also held that an oral gift was made by Haji Eba Sheikh in favour of his sons, the defendants, and that all the ingredients to constitute a valid oral gift under the Mohammedan Law having been proved, the defendants acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the suit land by virtue of such oral

16 16 gift. The learned First Appellate Court, however, while recording such finding has ignored the fact that the same was not the pleaded case of the defendants in the written statement. According to the defendants as pleaded in the written statement, they acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of a registered gift dated , which is marked as Ext.-Ka. 24. It is a settled position of law that no amount of the oral evidence, which is contrary to the pleadings, can be read into evidence. In the instant case, there is no pleading in the written statement relating to the existence of an oral gift. As noticed above, the pleaded case of the defendants is that they acquired the right, title and interest by virtue of the registered gift dated being Ext.-Ka. Under Section 23 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift of immoveable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. Hence a gift deed is required to be attested under the law. The due execution of such gift deed can be proved by examining at least one attesting witness as required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, if its due execution is denied by the donor. It is in the evidence that though there were two attesting witnesses in the gift deed (Ext.-Ka) and are capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court, none of the attesting witness has been examined by the defendants to prove the due execution of such gift deed. Hence the defendants could not prove the

17 17 due execution of such gift deed. That apart as held above, the suit land has already been transferred by Haji Eba Sheikh in favour of the plaintiffs by executing the sale deed being Ext.-1 dated After transfer of the said suit land by executing such sale deed, Haji Eba Sheikh did not have any right over the land to execute the gift deed being Ext.-Ka on as claimed by the defendants. In view of the above, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court in that regard cannot be sustained in law. 25. The learned First Appellate Court has also declared the order dated passed by the learned Executive Magistrate as void and illegal, only on the ground that such proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated during pendency of a civil dispute. There is no bar in law to initiate the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. during pendency of a civil suit, as the proceeding under the said provision of law is initiated when a dispute exists, which likely to cause breach of peace concerning any land or water or boundaries thereof. In an appropriate case, even though a civil suit between the parties is pending, there may be occasion to initiate the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the learned Executive Magistrate, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. That being the position, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court in that regard also cannot sustain in law.

18 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and decree dated passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.5/1998 is set aside. The judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.55/1981 is restored. The suit of the appellants stands decreed. The appeal stands allowed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost throughout. 27. The Registry is directed to send down the records. Roy JUDGE

THE 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. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) RSA No. 153 of 2000 1. Md. Anisur Rahman, S/O Lt. Mvi. Wazed Ali, Village-Batabari,

More information

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA 212/2005 1. Md. Hussain Ahmed 2. Md. Ilas Ahmed @ Bilal Ahmed 3. Md. Masuk Ahmed 4. Mustt. Chhayaban Nessa

More information

IN 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) 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 information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. RSA No. 106 of Smt. Mailata Talukdar, W/O Lt. Madhab Talukdar.

THE 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 information

THE 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. 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 information

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. 168/1999 On the death of Sibanath Sarma, the sole appellant his legal heirs

More information

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

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

More information

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page 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 information

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Page No.1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) ON THE DEATH OF HUSSAIN ALI HIS LEGAL HEIRS 1. CHAN MIA 2. BAKKAR ALI, 3. AKKAS ALI ALL ARE SONS OF

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) RSA No. 149 of 2006 APPELLANTS: 1. On the death of

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT RSA No. 94/ 2007 1. Musssamat Amirun Nessa, Wife of Late Safiquir Rahman 2. Hilal Uddin, Son

More information

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

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 21/2007

IN 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 information

THE 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 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: Md. Anowar Hussain & others Jamal Uddin & others -Versus- Appellants... Respondents BEFORE :: HON BLE

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. 3/2007

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. 3/2007 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. 3/2007 Habibur Rahman, S/o Late Jaharuddin, Village-Banskandi Part-II, P.O. Banskandi, Cachar. - Versus...Appellant

More information

CRP No. 369 / S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya. S/O Late Ganraram Upadhaya

CRP 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 80/2006

IN 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 information

Intest.Cas.5 of 2004

Intest.Cas.5 of 2004 Page No.1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Intest.Cas.5 of 2004 1. Isamuddin Mia 2. Md. Usman Mia Alias Osman Mia Both are sons of Late Uljan

More information

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

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

THE 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 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN 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 information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE 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) 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 information

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

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

More information

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

JUDGEMENT 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) RSA No. 73 of 2004

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) RSA No. 73 of 2004 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) RSA No. 73 of 2004 1) On the death of Sri Tileswar Medhi, Appellant No.1- his legal heirsi) Smt Jamini Medhi,

More information

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.

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 information

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

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

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN 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

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 331/2008

CIVIL 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN 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 information

IN 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 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 information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

Civil Revision Petition No. 118/2009 -VERSUS-

Civil 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 information

APPELLANT: Smt. Sawichhungi, D/o Lalngaiha (L), Chaltlang Ruamveng, Aizawl, Aizawl District.

APPELLANT: Smt. Sawichhungi, D/o Lalngaiha (L), Chaltlang Ruamveng, Aizawl, Aizawl District. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) APPELLANT: Smt. Sawichhungi, D/o Lalngaiha (L), Chaltlang Ruamveng, Aizawl, Aizawl District. By Advocate :

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

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

More information

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8538 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010) Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr.. Appellants Versus Chakiri

More information

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

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 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 information

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Test Case No. 01 OF 2003 Smt. Gita Mukherjee Appellant -Versus- Smt. Purnima Mukherjee and another..respondents BEFORE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT APPEAL NO.322 OF 2015 1. Koddus Ali @ Kuddus Ali S/O Late Fazar Ali 2. Sofia Khatun @ Sibila Khatun W/O Koddus

More information

CRP 210 of Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

CRP 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

IN 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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2014

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2014 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 2306 of 2014 1. Md. Sirajul Hoque @ Sirajul Islam, S/o. Lt. Abdul Karim. 2. Musstt. Nurjahan Khatun

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN 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) 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT VERSUS DIDAR SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENTS N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN 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 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2015 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1269-1270 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 21402-21403 OF 2015 PYARELAL... APPELLANT Versus SHUBHENDRA

More information

IN 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) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 242/2011 - Versus 1. Md. Anwar Ali, Son of Late Musabbir Ali, Resident

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 329 of 2000 On the death of Rajmangal Dubey

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 3680 of Vs-

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 3680 of Vs- IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) 3680 of 2013 Ohed Ali, S/o. Late Abdul Jobbar @ Jobbar, Village Uralkata Pathar, P.O. Chahariagaon, P.S.-

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3219 OF 2006

IN 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 information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 946 OF 2009

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 946 OF 2009 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 946 OF 2009 1. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR KEDIA, S/O. LATE BISWANATH KEDIA. 2. SRI SMTI. NIMAWATI KEDIA,

More information

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10379 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D)

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI. RSA No. 71 of 2005

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI. RSA No. 71 of 2005 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI APPELLANTS : RSA No. 71 of 2005 1. Smti Nanibala Dutta W/o Late Nandaram Dutta R/O/Toklai,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) Nos. 835/2009 and 2465/2009

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) Nos. 835/2009 and 2465/2009 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) WP(C) Nos. 835/2009 and 2465/2009 (I) WP(C) No.835/2009 Smt. Lakhimi Hazarika, W/O Shri

More information

IN 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 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 information

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

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RSA No. 171/2014 On the death of Late Purna Chandra Deka, his legal heirs:- 1. Srimati Pramila Deka 2. Smti.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2798/2011 % 19 th October, 2015 SH. SUSHIL YADAV AND ANR. Through: None.... Plaintiffs Versus M/S VALLEY VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.... Defendants

More information

IN 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 ) Page 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) 1. M/S Standard Finance (P) Ltd., NBS Commercial Building, GS Road, Bhangagarh,

More information

Vill- Kunapara, P.O. Umarpur, Dist. Karimganj, Assam.

Vill- Kunapara, P.O. Umarpur, Dist. Karimganj, Assam. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. Md. Nizam Uddin S/O Late Masaddar Ali Vill. & P.O. Umapur, Dist. Karimganj, Assam. 2 Md Helal Uddin, S/O Lt.

More information

IN 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: 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 information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2145/1999

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2145/1999 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 2145/1999 Shri Wahed Ali, Son of Late Mafizuddin Ahmed, Resident of Dhirenpara, P.S. Fatasil Ambari,

More information

IN 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 ) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) KOHIMA BENCH Crl. Revision Petn. No. 2(K)/2010 1. Smti Zavekholu Epao, W/o. Vizekho

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) No.2171 of 2017 Moizuddin Ahmed.. Petitioner

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION) WP(C) No.2855 of 2010 Ramesh Goswami Writ Petitioner

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) CRP No. 380 of 2014 M/S Shriram Transport Finance

More information

IN 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)

IN 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 information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

2. Mr.M.Mohammed Amjad, S/o.Late.Dr.M.Mohammed Ghouse, Aged about 37 years,

2. 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 information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : 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 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 information

Judgment Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI. Suit No. 812 of 2001

Judgment Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI. Suit No. 812 of 2001 Judgment Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Suit No. 812 of 2001 Present : Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar Date of hearing : 27.11.2012. Plaintiff : International Brands (Pvt.) Limited, through Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE LPA 776 OF 2012, CMs No. 19869/2012 (stay), 19870/2012 (additional documents), 19871/2012 (delay) Judgment Delivered on 29.11.2012

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9118-9119 OF 2010 Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN 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) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. Revision 11/2004 Sri Pintu Das, Son of Late Arun Das Resident of Philobari

More information

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI

THE 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 information

MAC App.7/2011 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

MAC 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM, AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.7347/2016 Jehirul Islam, Son of Md. Abdul Jalil @ Jalil Ali, Resident of village- Dimu, P.S.- Rangia,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. Leave Petition 28/2014 Smt. Rekha Bhargava, Wife of Sri Amrit Bhargava, D/o. Sri Satya Narayan Bhargava,

More information

THE 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) 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 information

IN 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) 1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Criminal Revision No.543 of 2004 & Criminal Revision No.590 of 2004 Criminal

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No of 2013 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP (C) No. 5343 of 2013 Muncher Ali, S/o. Latee Hussain Ali @ Hussain @ Hussain Miya @ Hussain Ali Miya, Viollage-

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1373/2012 (PAR)

IN 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 information

IN 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, 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 information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

IN THE 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) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1723 OF 2009 Petitioner: Sri Sailendra Nath Kakati, Son of late Loknath Kakati, Resident

More information

THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA

THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P(C) 4494/2004 NLK-204 Anuj Sonowal Son of Late Jadunath Sonowal C/o Sri Ratul Das, Vill-Khajuabeel,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : THE HON BLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN C.O. No.4601 of 2015 SRI UMAPADA JATI & ORS. VS. SRI MANAS JATI & ORS. For the Petitioners

More information

IN 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: 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 information

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc Appeal No. 224 of 2011 Abdul Hamid and others... Appellants State of Jharkhand and others Versus Respondents Coram : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the

More information