Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)126PLR759
M.L. Singhal, J.1. For a better understanding of the case, the following pedigree table is given :- Jawala | ---------------------------------------------------- | | | Mela Keli Gandu | | Kashmir Singh Rattan Singh Garib Singh (deceased) & Kishan SIngh ------------------------------------- | | | Bachan Darshan Bakshish Singh Singh Singh 2. Rattan Singh was owner in possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Jalalpura as detailed in the heading of the plaint. Rest 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas was owned by Bakshshish Singh and his two brothers Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh. Bakhshish Singh instituted suit for declaration against Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh etc. defendants to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 94 kanals 7 marlas pertaining to Rattan Singh on account of will dated 29.12.1978 executed by him in his favour to the exclusion of Darshan Singh and Bachan Singh etc. defendants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1815; 2004(176)ELT24(SC); JT2004(1)SC232; 2004(1)SCALE341; (2004)3SCC214
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 19877/01, 6064/02 & 8657/02).2. The Bombay Port Trust (hereinafter 'BPT', for short), presently constituted and governed by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, and now known as The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been the subject matter of several legislations governing its constitution, administration, powers and duties, some of which are The Bombay Port Trust Act, 1873, The Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 and the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Bombay, presently known as Mumbai, continues to be the commercial capital of the country. In spite of the development of several other ports having taken place along the coasts of India, some of them being of recent origin, the Bombay port continues to be the Gateway of India for international trade and commerce. Space is scarce in Mumbai as it is an island, and demands on its land are heavy in view of the ever-g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC443; [1959]Supp1SCR426
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the appellant in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, as the sole executor of the will alleged to have been executed by one Lakshmamma on August 22, 1945, (Ex. A). In this suit the appellant claimed a declaration that the said Lakshmamma was the owner of the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint and as such was entitled to dispose of them by a will; and he asked for consequential reliefs purporting to give effect to the bequests made by the said will. The schedule attached to the plaint describes the properties covered by the will under five items. First three items in the schedule refer respectively to 5, 4 and 4 agricultural lands at Hampapura village, whereas the fourth item includes 9 lands at Arjunahalli village and the last item is a vacant site in Hampapura village. According to the plaint, under the will respondent 1 was entitled only to a life interest in items 1 and 2 and that on her d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT242
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration as to Will dated 06.09.1995, which he disputes, as not legal and binding and that it contravenes Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act; he also claims that in the event of declaration not being granted, the Court should hold that the said Will is void and not binding on him. He further seeks a decree for partition in respect of the estate of Mrs. Lajja Sareen (hereafter called 'the testatrix') regarding the property No. N-84, Panchsheel Park (hereafter referred to as 'suit property'), movable/immovable assets fully described in the Suit, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition and take consequential steps towards drawing a final decree.2. The undisputed facts that may be gathered from the pleadings are that the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'Sarvjeet'), Defendant No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'Ritu') and defendant No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'Beena') are brother and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1996)2GLR200
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Mohanlal Amarji Marvadi, by this appeal from jail has brought under challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 21st April, 1995, rendered in Atrocity Criminal Case No. 28 of 1994, passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, wherein he on his coming to be tried alongwith other three co-accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was convicted for the same (alongwith other co-accused) and sentenced to suffer (i) R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for six months; and (ii) R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month for the said two offences respectively.2. To state the earliest and afresh prosecution case as it gets unfolded through the F.I.R. (Exh. 52) lodged by PW-4 Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad500; (1933)64MLJ112
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1931 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura. A decree was passed against the petitioner ex parte. He then applied for the setting aside of that decree and it was ordered that it should be set aside if he gave security for the suit amount and costs within three weeks. The order as to this was passed on 12th March, 1932, and a draft security bond was filed on 15th March, 1932. The report of the Amin as to the sufficiency of the security was not received within the three weeks' time allowed for furnishing security, and so an application (I. A. No. 170 of 1932) was made for extending the time but, after notice had been given to the other side, the learned Subordinate Judge held, on 8th July, 1932, that the security had not been furnished within the time allowed and that it was not competent for him to extend the time, and dismissed the application. In the meantime, according to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned P. P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 64(M)93 (GR 475/92) whereby the accused appellant Abani Goswami alias Jitu Goswami was convicted under Section 306, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default further imprisonment for 10 days. 3. This is a case of unfortunate death of young house wife and the investigation bull was set rolling by Sidhabari Pragati Manila Samity by filing the ejahar (Ext. 1) stating that the accused appellant, the husband of Archana Goswami @ Binu Goswami, used to torture his wife cruelly, for demand of dowry etc., and it has resulted in the death of the young wife. 4. The accused appellant was charged under Section 304B/306, IPC. However, in view of the evidence on record, the trial court held that no case of demand for dowry has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom160
1. The plaintiff claiming to be a purchaser of the suit properties from one Shivnath -- daughter's son of one Bhika -- filed suit No. 59 of 1951 in the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ahmednagar, against the defendants who were respectively purchasers of the same property from the widow of Bhika.The plaintiff claimed that Bhika who died on 7-12-1934 had made a will whereby he had devised the suit properties in favour of Shivnath, and Shivnath had become the owner of those properties and that he claimed a title derived from Shivnath. The suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that Bhika had not made a will.2. Before the learned trial Judge evidence was sought to be led to prove the will dated 7-12-1934. The learned trial Judge held that execution of the will was not proved according to the requirements of Section 63, Succession Act and therefore Shivnath could not be deemed to have acquired title to the property of Bhika under the will. On that vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR777
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The first respondent was working as a Jailor in Grade II and during the relevant time, between 10th July, 1985 and 17th August, 1985, he was assigned for duty at the District Prison, Byculla, Mumbai. At the time when the first respondent was posted as Jailor, an undertrial prisoner by the name of Abdul Hamid was lodged in the prison. It was alleged that during this period, there was a failure on the part of the first respondent to discharge his duties and that the aforesaid undertrial prisoner had brought in unauthorised articles including a Television Set, Video Recorder and Video Cassettes. There was, it was alleged, a failure on the part of the first respondent to take necessary steps which he was under an obligation to take in his capacity as a Jailor. A disciplinary enquiry came to be convened against the first respondent and on 3rd February, 1986, a charge-sheet was issued to him. On the conclusion of those proceedings, the first respondent came to be remov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3018; 1995(1)KarLJ15
Tirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of dismissal passed against him by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Respondent-Company and that passed by the Board of Directors dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the same. The petitioner has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate him against the post originally held by him with continuity of service and payment of salary and allowances etc.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Petition may be stated first:The petitioner was at the relevant time working as the Joint General Manager of H.M.T. Factory-I and II at Bangalore. Being qualified to get a motor car advance for the purchase of a Motor Car, the petitioner made a request for such an advance, which request was granted and a loan of Rs. 45,000/- sanctioned by the competent authority in his favour. The petitioner dr...
Tag this Judgment!