Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)120PLR525
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The only argument vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in this Regular Second Appeal, is that the plaintiffs had made an alternative prayer in the suit for grant of liquidated damages/compensation for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- and thus, the learned courts below ought not to have granted the decree for specific performance. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Rangaraju Naidhu v. S. Thiruvarakkarsau, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1769.2. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer certain facts of this case.3. A suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 7.11.1985 executed by the defendants in regard to the suit land was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant, Rattan Lal. It was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the land for the total sale consideration of Rs. 47,000/-. Out of which Rs. 13,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom338; (1943)45BOMLR687
Chagla, J.1. This is a pauper petition filed by the petitioner who alleges that she is the illegitimate child of the respondent and claims maintenance from him. The petition of the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis came on before the Prothonotary, and the Prothonotary feeling some doubt as to whether the petition disclosed any cause of action referred it to the Chamber Judge, Mr, Justice Kania rejected the petition under Order XXXIII, Rule 5(d), of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, holding that the allegations in the petition did not show a cause of action. From this decision of Mr. Justice Kania the petitioner appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the order of Mr. Justice Kania and held that the petition should be accepted assuming that pauperism is proved. In the judgment of the Appeal Court the learned Chief Justice stated that it was not an absurd application on the part of the petitioner if she could establish that she was the illegitimate child of the respondent. He went on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.477
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ.1. One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1998P& H233; (1998)119PLR326
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Provision of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act vests jurisdiction in the Cburt to decline specific performance even on equitable, just and fair grounds. The very ambit and scope of powers conferred upon the Courts which spring from this provision is the basic question that fails for determination in the present case. Before adverting myself to answer legal ontentions raised on behalf of the either side in is Regular Second Appeal, it will be necessary to refer to the basic facts giving rise to this appeal.2. Ram Lubhaya plaintiff in the suit respondent herein had filed a suit for specific performance and possession on the basisof an agreement to sell dated 6-8-1990. According to the case pleaded by the respondent it was stated that the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell regarding 8 kanals of land forming- part of khewat No. 50, khatoni No. 52, Khasra No. 35/14 (S-O) situated in the area of village Hussainpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr. The agreed total sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3937
Surya Kant, J.1. Hovering between life and death, Kulwinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has put us in a piquant dilemma on the quantum of punishment especially when the 'sin' protruding out of the crime for which he has been found guilty, protests against any mercy.2. On the fateful clay, i.e., 4th August 2002 at about 2.30 PM Sarabjit Singh S/o Avtar Singh heard noise of his grand-mother Joginder Kaur emanating from inside the room built in the Bara (courtyard). He rushed to the Bara and after opening the door of the room saw that the accused was attacking with a gandasi on the neck of his grand-mother Joginder Kaur who was the maternal grand-mother in relation, to the accused as well. On seeing Sarabjit Singh the accused fled away along with his gandasi. When Sarabjit Singh went inside the room, he was horrified to see that his sister, Harelip Kaur, aged 17 years, was also lying near the heap of wheat husk smeared with blood and was crying for help. When he rushed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2006Delhi156; 2005(2)CTLJ431(Del); 128(2006)DLT96
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi, owner of plot numbers 58, 59, 68A and 60B, measuring about 850 sq. yds. forming part of khasra No. 2/19, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola in the abadi known as Nidhi Vihar, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi entered into an agreement to sell dated 4th March, 2005 in favor of the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid as earnest money (bayana) and the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to the seller on or before 25th June, 2005, upon execution and registration of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff or his nominee in terms of the said agreement. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff had approached Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi for taking actual measurement of the land as the same was postulated under the terms of the agreement. He required the said person to be present on site for such measurement. Unfortunately, Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi died o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(90)DRJ276
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance against the defendant in relation to the built-up property bearing no. 100, Block no. B, Jhilmil Colony, Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 57.50 sq. yards, in furtherance to the agreement to sell entered into between the parties on 20.01.2004. Vide the above agreement, the defendant had agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff, for a total consideration of Rs. 19 lacs and in terms thereof a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was received by the defendant from the plaintiff. The balance amount of Rs. 13 lacs was payable at the time of the registration of the Sale Deed. The sale deed was executed on 18.2.2004 and possession of the vacant property was to be delivered to the plaintiff on the said date. Having failed to get the sale deed registered in its favor and having not received any response from the defendant, the plaintiff on 1.2.2004 visited the suit property and learnt from a Real Estate Agent in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)13; I(1998)DMC424; (1997)3GLR240
K.J. Vaidya, J.1. Here in this Criminal Revision Application, there arise two important questions for my consideration. They are Firstly - 'Whether the husband who has been ordered to pay the maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code/1973 to his wife and the child by the learned Magistrate and has in fact by this time indisputably continuously paid the same and that too in all to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-, but then incidentally enough as the misfortune would have been by sheer stroke of ill-luck he becoming the victim of the hostile circumstances beyond his control rendered unemployed, with no bank balance or any other property at hand to fall back upon rather too poor, and accordingly, as a result was unable to pay and started committing default after default every month in paying regular maintenance amount, accumulating into arrears ultimately rising beyond reach amount of Rs. 17,000/-, can he under such no-fault bewitching circumstances be straightway fastened with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC553; 2007(2)WLN120
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovenamed accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1997, by which he acquitted the accused appellant of the charge under Section 498A, IPC, but convicted him under Section 306, IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' SI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short are as follows:On 28.12.1994 (from 5.15 P.M. to 6.00 P.M.), P.W. 5 Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, A.D.M., Bhilwara recorded the statement of Smt. Chandrakala (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) W/o Ramphal (accused appellant), aged 17 years, resident of 3E-19. New Housing Board, Shastri Nagar Bhilwara, in the MG Hospital, Bhilwara, in which she stated as follows:1. That deceased was married with Ramphal (accused appellant) before four...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1620; 2002(5)WLC487; 2002(2)WLN333
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 174/97, by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 304B and 498 IPC and sentenced them in the following manner;-Name of accused appellantsConvictedu/Sec.Sentenceawarded to each accused appellant1. Sukhdarshan304B IPCSevenyears R! and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo six months Rt.2. Kishorilal3. Smt. Sita 498AIPCOneyear RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo one month RI.Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short, are as follows:-On 8.3.1996 at about 7.45 PM, PW 1 Vijay Kumar lodged a written report Ex.P/1 before PW 17 Rajendra Singh, who was SHO, Police Station Kesrisinghpur at t...
Tag this Judgment!