Ranbir Singh Dhanjal Vs. Aruna Gupta and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....act, 1961.[k.a. no. 8/1962]. sections 3(1) (h) & 30: person in management exclusion from applicability of act apparent conflict between section 30 and section3(1)(h) held, section3(1)(h) of the act require amendment. court cannot fill up a casus omissus. matter left open. -- 25 & 30(1): accused charged for offence under - order taking cognizance of offence by magistrate no infirmity found by high court held, order is not liable to be interfered with.-- section 438: anticipatory bail deletion of provision under section 438 cr.p.c. by section 9 of u.p. act 16/1976 - entailed filing of thousands of writ petitions and section 482 cr.p.c. applications in allahabad high court for stay of petitioners arrest and/or quashing fir deletion causing hardship to public, and overcrowding in jails problem will be obviated by restoring provision for anticipatory bail in state of u.p. court made strong recommendation to u.p. government to immediately issue ordinance to restore provision for anticipatory bail further, decision in amarawati & anr v state of u.p.,2005cri lj 755 (all) (fb) directed to be implemented in letter and spirit.(obiter)(per markandey katju, j.). .....22,05,000/-2. the trial court, in its judgment dated 18th september 1999, partly decreed the suit inasmuch that a decree for rs. 15,29,417.15p. was granted, though the suit qua the claim for specific performance was dismissed. the appellate court, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in toto. this order has been affirmed by the division bench in a letters patent appeal. the said orders have been challenged in this appeal by special leave.3. in the memo of parties, the appellant has given his address as under:ranbir singh dhanjal son of late s. tarlochan singh resident of canada, at present residing at 205, sector 36a, chandigarh.it would be clear from the memo that the address relating to canada is indeterminate and the efforts to serve the appellant on his address in chandigarh have remained futile. the office report shows that the notices sent have been received unserved with the remarks 'addressee left'.4. in this view of the matter, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in default. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. This appeal of the year 2002 has been filed by the appellant in-person, who is the former husband of respondent No. 1. The claim in the appeal is that a sum of rupees twenty two lakhs and odd, which the appellant claims he has spent on his wife, should be defrayed by her to him. The plaintiff appellant claimed reliefs in the following term:

Decree for specific performance of 1/4th share in the property Unit No. B-1-974, out of property measuring 2400 sq. yds. situated at Rajpura Road, Ludhiana and/or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 22,05,000/-

2. The trial Court, in its judgment dated 18th September 1999, partly decreed the suit inasmuch that a decree for Rs. 15,29,417.15p. was granted, though the suit qua the claim for specific performance was dismissed. The appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in toto. This order has been affirmed by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. The said orders have been challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. In the memo of parties, the appellant has given his address as under:

Ranbir Singh Dhanjal son of Late S. Tarlochan Singh Resident of Canada, at present residing at 205, Sector 36A, Chandigarh.

It would be clear from the memo that the address relating to Canada is indeterminate and the efforts to serve the appellant on his address in Chandigarh have remained futile. The office report shows that the notices sent have been received unserved with the remarks 'addressee left'.

4. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal in default. No costs.