Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1948PC33
Lord Simonds: This appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore affirming a decree and judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Lyallpur raises questions of some importance in regard to the powers of the executive authorities under the Colonisation of Government Lands Act of 1912. 2. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The lands in question in the case, which are situated in the district of Lyallpur, were at some date not made known to their Lordships granted under the Colony Act, 1893, to one Mokham on what is described as the usual colony tenancy. He died and was succeeded by a son named Jhanda who died without issue and was in turn succeeded by his mother Mt. Hayat Bibi, the widow of Mokham. At some date, which also does not clearly appear, the widow made an oral gift of the land to her son Imam Din. If she had full proprietary rights, she was competent to do so. Her competence has been challenged by the appellants all of whom are collaterals o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ314
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.7.1993 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. Nos. 6094 and 6095 of 1993.2. The appellant is the second respondent in the writ petitions. The first respondent is the petitioner in both the writ petitions. The second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petitions. The Election Commission of India has been impleaded in the writ appeal pursuant to the orders dated 7.10.1993 and 20.10.1993, at the instance of the first respondent passed in C.M.P. No. 13873 of 1993.3. The first respondent herein has also filed another petition, C.M.P. No. 13874 of 1993 for directing the second respondent (Mr. T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner) to rescue himself when the question of the alleged disqualification of the first respondent is taken up for adjudication by the Election Commission. The Election Commission, through its Secretary, has also filed the counter-affidavit on its behalf. Mr. T.N. Seshan has als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:18. h February, 2019. CS(COMM) 903/2018 & IA165862018 (u/O XXXIX R-4 CPC) CROCS INC. USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus AQUALITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Rohan Seth and Mr. Dhruv Grover, Advs. AND CS(COMM) 905/2016 & IA86062016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) CROCS INC USA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Sazeed Rayeen and Mr. Somnath Dey, Advs. Versus ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Ms. Devyani Nath & Ms. Kaveri Jain, Advs. AND CS(COMM) Nos.903/2018, 905/2016, 906/2016, 1415/2016, 569/2017 & 571/2017 Page 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(3)WLC661; 1991(1)WLN291
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 3.12.1990 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4867 of 1990, Radhey Shyam Soni v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. referred the following questions for determination by a larger Bench to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in view of the fact that the parties have succumbed to the jurisdiction of the Family Court and have not raised any objection about non-compliance of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the learned Judge of the Division Bench in Dr. Suresh Kumar Bakliwal case (supra) and other connected cases were authorised to formulate the questions which they have formulated and answered in the pending appeals against the judgment of a family court specially as regards the constitution and functioning of Family Court?(2) Whether functioning of the Family Courts can be brought to a stand still simply because certain Rules have not been framed either by the High Court or by the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1981WLN701
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A 'Crackdown' & 'Mass sacking' of University Lecturers (temporary) on change of ruling party by issuing the Governors Ordinance, whether offends the equal protection Clause, is the billion dollar question, raised under the banner of discrimination between 'pre-emergency' and 'post-emergency' appointees by Section 3 of the Ordinance. The 25th June, 1975' having been made the 'Laxaman Rekha','deadline' or 'D Day, for regularisation of services, the ousted post-emergency Lecturers have invoked Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India to quash the '25th June, 1975', Arbitrary dead line', a 'brainchild' of the then Vice Chancellors and readily welcomed by the then Government, the ruling party of which is alleged to be anti-emergency.2. The ruling political parties existence being temporary and changing, in federal democratic Constitution, but the bureaucracy and services, being permanent, unalloyed, and unadulterated bedrock of the State; should the High Court as w...
Tag this Judgment!