Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Anil Kumar Vs. M/S. Gyan Dev and Sons and Another

Anil Kumar vs M/S. Gyan Dev and Sons and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 22, 1994
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/679956

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.R. 64 of 1985
Subject
Tenancy;Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case focused on the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in order to implead landlord as a party, in a suit between two tenants - In the instant case, it was noticed that the need to implead the landlord aroused, on account of defense, raised by the tenant in his written sta...

Key legal issue
Tenancy;Civil
Acts & sections
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 1, Rule 10

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar

Advocate J.K. Seth, Adv

Respondent

M/S. Gyan Dev and Sons and Another

Advocate Nemo, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 1, Rule 10
Reported In
AIR1995Delhi43; 54(1994)DLT400

Excerpt

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of.....order1. this revision petition is listed today for final hearing along with a note in the cause list 'no adjournment will be given in first 10 cases. counsel are requested to be ready with their briefs.'2. as none appeared for respondents till 2.40 p.m. the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This revision petition is listed today for final hearing along with a note in the cause list 'No adjournment will be given in first 10 cases. Counsel are requested to be ready with their briefs.'

2. As none appeared for respondents till 2.40 p.m. the learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial