Court : Delhi
JUDGMENT 1. The Trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit for possession and mesne profits relating to property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi which is under challenge in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2 are referred to by their ranks in the suit as plaintiff, defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively. Mohinder Kaur was defendant No.1 in the suit. 2. The dispute between the parties relate to the first, second and terrace floors of property bearing No.E-318, East of Kailash, New Delhi, hereinafter referred as “the suit property‟. The suit property is built over leasehold plot measuring 125 sq. yards which was originally allotted to Darshan Kaur. Darshan Kaur sold the said plot to the plaintiff on 19th April, 1973 vide construction agreement dated 19th April, 1973 accompanied by General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff's nominee, T.S. Chadha. The plaintiff constructed a three storey building over the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Vide the instant petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.01.2011, whereby ld. Additional Sessions Judge (02) West, Delhi passed order on charge and vide separate order on the same date, charge under Section 368 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been framed against the petitioner.2. The facts in the instant case are extremely peculiar. All the accused namely Vijay Lal, Kailash and Nanhe Lal have been charge- sheeted by police Station Nihal Vihar for the offence under section 363/376G/328/506/342/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegations that on 25.07.2009 at about 2 PM at B30220, Chandan Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi accused Nanhe Lal kidnapped prosecutrix and took her to the factory near Mundka Metro Station with an intent that she will be compelled to marry against her will and to seduce her for illicit intercourse and thereafter committed rape upon her.3. As per the prosecution story, Nanhe Lal also made the prosecutrix smell a stupefying thing with intention to kidnap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CR No.1864 of 2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (237) CR No.1864 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:17.01.2014 Vidya Mahankali Rao ......Petitioner Versus Sandeep Dutt and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 17.11.2012 whereby application moved by him under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that respondents had been given the possession of the property as caretaker. Suit for mandatory injunction had been filed by the petitioner that the defendants be got removed from the suit property and decree of permanent injunction has also been sought restraining the defendants from removing any article from the suit Sandeep Sethi 2014.01.23 10:29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6637/2001 10th October, 2013 % K.S. KATHURIA Through: ......Petitioner Mr. N.K.Vohra and Mr. Jitender Vohra, Advocates. VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Vishnu Mehra and Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. K.S.Kathuria who has been dismissed from services in terms of the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities of the respondent no.1-State Bank of Patiala. Petitioner seeks quashing of the orders of the departmental authorities; of the disciplinary authority dated 6.3.2000 and the appellate authority dated 12.12.2001.2. Before I turn to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it has to be noted that the petitioner disputed the content of the charge sheet, however, during the enquiry proceedings petitioner gave a specific written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.6571/1998 17th April, 2015 % SHRI R.L. SAHI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate. Versus SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent no.1/Syndicate Bank and worked as Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager of the respondent No.1/Bank at Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi and as Divisional Manager (DM) at Chandigarh Branch, impugns the orders passed by the departmental authorities imposing the punishment of dismissal from services of the petitioner.2. There were three charges against the petitioner. The first charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner while working in the Asaf Ali Road Branch, New Delhi of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31. 07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.817 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 G.Kamaladevi : Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Ramasamy 2.R.Maragathavalli 3.M.Rajendran : Respondents Praye Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in unnumbered E.A.SR.No.1630 of 2015 in E.A.No.945 of 2014 in E.P.No.28 of 2009 in O.S.No.16 of 2002, on the file of learned Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. !For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi, For M/s.Hall Mark Associates ^For Respondent No.1 : No Appearance For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen Reserved on 27 July, 2015 Delivered on 31 July, 2015 :ORDER INTRODUCTORY: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exposes the illegality committed by the Executing Court in the matter of sale of property of the judgment debtor in 2011 much below t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction Original Side G.A.No.949 of 2013 PLA No.255 of 2011 In the Goods of : Purushottam Dass Bangur For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K. Kapoor, Sr.Advocate Mr.P.K Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Hearing concluded on : April 20, 2016 Judgment on : May 4, 2016 S.P.Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Debajyoti Datta, Advocate Adil Rashid, Advocate Amiya Narayan Mukherjee, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The propounders seeking grant of probate of the Will of Purushottam Dass Bangur, since deceased has applied for the caveat of the son of the deceased given in adoption, namely, Lakshmi Niwas Bangur (hereinafter referred to as the caveator) to be discharged and probate of the Will of the deceased to be granted. Mr.S.K.Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, consequent to the caveator being given in adoption, he had ceased to have any right in the natural family in view of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is mainly to the award of sentence to the appellant on his conviction for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On conviction, the Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with the default stipulation. By the impugned order, the High Court has affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.3. Since in this appeal we propose to deal only with the legal proposition urged on behalf of the appellant, we deem it unnecessary to state, in detail, the case of the prosecution against the appellant which resulted in his conviction. It would suffice to note that the incident in which the appellant is stated to have participated, took place on 28th August, 2002.4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the conviction of the appellant mainly on the ground that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was a juvenile and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Cav Judgment: 1. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short) is filed by the original plaintiffs with original defendants No.2,5 and 6 against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1997 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1988 whereby the learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 525 of 1979 dated 30th July, 1988. The suit was filed by the appellants No.1 and 2 for recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondent No.1 (Original defendant No.1). For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Judge. 2. The case of the plaintiffs in their suit was that the defendant No.1 was employed as watchman to look after the trust properties including the hospital and nursing home run by plaintiff no.1, that to fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom247; (1932)34BOMLR427
Patkar, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether in a suit by the vendee it is competent to the Court to pass a decree for possession conditional on the vendee paying the unpaid purchase money.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the house in suit alleging that it belonged to her father Shivlingappa who sold it to her on December 15, 1920, for Rs. 1,000 and delivered possession, and that during her absence she was dispossessed by the defendants, her sisters. Defendant No. 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that the transaction was hollow and without consideration and denied that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transfer was not colourable but was without consideration, and passed a decree ordering possession of the entire house on condition that if within three months the plaintiff did not pay to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. 600 the suit shall be dismissed, and that the plaintiff s...
Tag this Judgment!