Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006FAJ129
ORDERVinod Prasad, J.1. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist Shashi Kant Gupta against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.4.1985 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Shashi Kant Gupta v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 1984; decided on 17-4-1985, under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S. Garotha, district Jhansi. By the impugned judgment and order the lower Appellate Court had set aside the trial Court's order and had remanded the case back for rehearing.2. The factual matrix were that the sample of 450 grams of whole turmeric was taken by P.W. 1, O.S. Sengar, Food Inspector from the shop of the revisionist on 29.9.1981 at 3.15 P.M. after giving notice in form-6 (Ex. Ka-1). The receipt of the purchase (Ex. Ka-2), inspection note (Ex. Ka-3) and Form No. 7 (Code slip) (Ex. Ka-4) were prepared by him and purchase receipt was got signed by the revisionist at the time of taking of sample. He sealed the sample into three phi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(4)JCR206(Jhr)]
D.R.R. Patnaik, J.1. The present appeal are directed against the common judgment dated 11.1.2005 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh, dismissing five Title Appeals filed against the judgment dated 31.3.1989 and its corresponding decree dated 10.4.1989 passed by the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Hazaribagh commonly in five separate Eviction Suits which were tried analogously along with one inter-pleader suit.Since questions of law involved in all these appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Litigation in these appeals has a chequered history. The respondents Rupchand Jain, Sumerchand Jain and Dhirendra Kumar Jain filed individual eviction suits under the Rent Control Act praying for eviction of their respective tenants from the suit premises, on the ground of default in payment of monthly rents. Their claim was that the property constituting the suit premises in each suit was purchased by them by virtue of six separate registered sale deeds dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1967P& H9
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. The question which has to be answered in this reference briefly is whether a dismissed application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis accompanied by a memorandum of appeal has to be treated as an appeal to obtain the advantage of a fresh start of limitation under Clause 2 of the third column of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908? The material portion of this Article is in these terms :--- Description of application. Period of Limitation. Time from which period begins to run.182. For the execution of a decree or Three years ; . ... 1. The date of the decree or order, order of any Civil Court not or provided for by Article 183 or by 2. (Where there has been an appeal Section 48 of the Civil P. C., 1908. the date of the finaldecree or order of the Appellate Court.2. The point has arisen in this revision petition involving a small amount of Rs. 583-4-0 for which Harnam Singh obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sangrur, on 31st o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3892; 2004(2)AWC1721(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN152; [2004(3)JCR85(SC)]; JT2004(4)SC127; (2004)3MLJ72(SC); 2004(3)SCALE481; (2004)3SCC682
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is the landlord-owner of the suit premises in occupation of respondent as the tenant Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The appellant's case was that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements. It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of the respondent was in a dilapidated condition. It was an old construction. Cracks had developed in the walls and the lintel. The corners of walls had given way. The local municipality had served a notice on the appellant on 27.02.1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel. Hence, It was necessary to demolish the shop and reconstruct the same.3. The Prescribed Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1967)8GLR986
N.G. Shelat, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order pissed on 23rd October 1959 by Mr. S.L. Bapat, Third Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 175 of 1953 whereby the order passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Dholka in Darkhast No. 49 of 1952 came to be set aside and the Darkhast was remanded back to the Lower Court for proceeding further in accordance with law.2. Bai Monghi, widow of Doongersi Dipchand, the respondent, had filed Civil Suit No. 60 of 1943 against the appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Dholka, and obtained a decree in her favour on 28th April, 1948. By that decree the deed dated 23rd September 1942 said to have been passed by Bai Monghi in favour of the defendant in the suit was found to be nominal and not binding and that on her paying a sum of Rs. 1762-8-0 to the defendant, she was to get possession of the suit property from the defendant. She was also awarded costs of the suit, and for determination o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad421; (1937)1MLJ407
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this appeal is whether an application to execute the final decree in a suit on a mortgage is barred by limitation. The relevant dates necessary for its disposal are as follows:Preliminary decree .. 21st July, 1925.Final decree. .. 9th November, 1925.Decree of the appellate Court confirming thepreliminary decree .. 16th March, 1927.Application for execution .. 15th March, 1930.2. The learned District Munsif held following the decision in Somar Singh v. Deonandan Prasad Singh I.L.R.(1927) 6 Pat. 780 that the application was not barred by limitation. But the learned Subordinate Judge following the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., in Ahammad Kutty v. Kottekkat Kuttu (1932) 64 M.L.J. 251 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 458 held that it was barred. The Article of the Limitation Act applicable to the case is Article 182(2):For the execution of the Three years. (where there has been andecree of a Civil Court appeal) the date of the final decree or order ofthe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 63 of 1974/14 of 1977. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and on appeal by the defendants of the suit, the lower Court's decree was reversed and, hence, this second appeal. The plaintiff-appellants challenged the findings of the first appellate Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the first appellate Court failed to consider the oral evidence of the parties and it formed a wrong opinion regarding Hukumnama claimed by the defendant-respondents and it also wrongly held that the order of the Magistrate passed in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was final because its revision also failed.2. Before I proceed to examine the judgment of the first appellate Court in the light of grounds of appeal set up by the plaintiff-appellants, it would be worthwhile to state, in substance, the case of the parties which will facilitate the decision on the question involved in the second appeal. The conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th April, 1987, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1983/6 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs of the Title Suit No. 68 of 1971. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. So the appellants lost in both the lower Courts and then they have filed this second appeal.2. I find that in this second appeal, substantial question of law, formulated for decision was 'Whether the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 82 of 1947 will bind the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 irrespective of the fact as to whether the acquisition of the property was not by a registered deed.'3. The relevant facts relating to the issue of law formulated by this Court are worth mentioning. The case of the plaintiff- appellants was that one Satya Narayan Singh was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR1065
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the construction of Article 182 of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.2. In a suit brought many years ago for partition of certain properties, held jointly by the parties to this appeal and their predecessors, a receiver was appointed with power to raise a loan on the security of a mortgage of the properties. The receiver borrowed Rs. 18,000 from some of the co-sharers, and on July 10,1894, he executed a mortgage of the properties in their favour. Amongst the mortgagees were Nagendra Nath Dey and Pulin Behari Dey, who are the appellants before this Board, and Madan Mohan and his son, who are respondents Nos. 24 and 27 respectively. The position at that date was that some of the co-sharers were mortgagees and all the co-sharers were mortgagors.3. In 1907, after the shares of the several co-sharers in the partition suit had been alloted to them and the receiver discharged, Madan Mohan and his son instituted the suit out o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC968; (1974)2SCC1; [1974]3SCR494
S.N. Dwivedi, J.1. Kariya and his wife Sava purchased the house in dispute by a registered deed on April 2, 1905. Kariya died in 1936 leaving behind him Sava and Ram Charan, his son. On August 16, 1951 Ram Charan mortgaged the house to Prem Raj (the appellant). Prem Raj obtained a preliminary decree for foreclosure on August 16, 1952 and also the final decree on July 16, 1955. In the meanwhile on March 7,1952 Sava gifted the entire house to Prakash Chandra, son of Ram Charan, the respondent. Fortified by this gift, Prakash Chandra frustrated several attempts of the appellant to get possession of the house in execution of his decree. He made three unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree till the end of 1954. He made the fourth attempt on April 25, 1956. Shortly thereafter, on December 7, 1956, Prakash Chandra instituted a suit against the appellant and his father Rani Charan for a declaration that the preliminary and final decree for foreclosure in favour of the former were not bind...
Tag this Judgment!