Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN380
Amit Talukdar, J.1. Should the Writ Court shrink to the suggestion that the relief sought for by the petitioner is covered with a tapestry of civil nature? Or should it shy away from the suggestion that there exists a viable and efficacious alternate remedy?2. Either of those, if true, shutters have to be rolled down on the face of the petitioner who has claimed the following relief:'A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the communication dated 9.10.92, being Annexure 'K' herein, and to take immediate steps for fixation of rent payable in respect of the premises in question with effect from the expiry of the original lease deed i.e. from 30th September, 1987 and then to enhance the same at an interval of every 5 years in terms of the directives and/or guidelines issued by the respondent No. 8 as mentioned in Annexure 'A' herein; keeping in mind the prevailing market rate.'3. Prior to slamming the heavy Doors ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1066IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT/ CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) No.44 of 2023 in Review Petition (C) No.704 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.1599 of 2020 IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT1996AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT1899And With Arbitration Petition No.25 of 2023 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Reference .................................................................................................................. 5 B. Submissions ........................................................................................................... 12 C. Maintainability ........................................................................................................ 18 D. The Indian Stamp Act 1899 .................................................................................... 22 i. Overview ...................................................................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2402 OF2019VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS ..... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DURGA TRADING CORPORATION ..... RESPONDENT(S) W I T H SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5606 OF2019AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION No.11877 OF2020JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.This judgment decides the reference to three Judges made vide order dated 28th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.2402 of 2019 titled Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation,1 as it doubts the legal ratio expressed in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia2 that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property 1 2019 SCC OnLine SC3582 (2017) 10 SCC7061 Act, 1882, are not arbitrable as this would be contrary to public policy.2. A deeper consideration of the order of reference reveals that the issues required to be answered relate to two aspects that are distinct and yet interconnected, namely: (i) meaning of non-arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO5542 OF2016[Arising out of SLP [C]. No.12398/2014]. Sai Bhaskar Iron Ltd. Appellant(s) Vs. A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. Respondents WITH CA Nos.5543-5544 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 14638-14639/2014 CA No.5545 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. No.15205/2014 CA Nos. 5546-5571 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15245-15270/2014 CA Nos. 5572-5575 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15348-15351/2014 CA Nos. 5576-5578 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15356-15358/2014 CA Nos. 5579-5583 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15360-15364/2014 CA Nos. 5584-5586 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15389-15391/2014 CA No.5587 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. No.15603/2014 CA No.5588 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. No.15845/2014 CA Nos. 5589-5598 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15878-15887/2014 CA No.5599 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. No.15891/2014 CA Nos. 5600-5601 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15938-15939/2014 CA No.5602 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. No.15940/2014 CA Nos. 5603-5611 of 2016 @ SLP [C]. Nos. 15985-15993/2014 CA No.561...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Writ Petition Nos.30818 of 2012 and batch 24-2-2014 Andhra Pradesh Spinning Mills Association Regd. No.39201, 1st Floor, 105 Surya Towers Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad Rep. by its Chairman Sri Ravinder Kumar Agarwal and others... Petitioners Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission ,11-4-660, 4th Floor, Singareni Bhavan Red Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary and another..Respondents COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS : Sri K. Gopal Choudary COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel, for Sri Potluri Srinivasa Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS:1. (1973) 1 SCC2612. (1979) 3 SCC4313. (1995) 4 SCC1044. (2004) 1 SCC3205. (1995) 4 SCC7186. AIR1959SC6487. AIR1956SC6768. AIR1964SC12849. (2011) 14 SCC18710. (2009) 15 SCC57011. (2002) 5 SCC28512. AIR2002SC53313. AIR1971SC53014. (2012) 1 SCC64215....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons.2) Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)BomCR455
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J. 1. All these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by this common Judgment as they involve common questions.2. Writ Petition No. 2773 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 3041 of 1997 are filed by the same Environment Group from Bombay as public interest litigation. The prayer in W.P. No. 2773 of 1997 is for declaring Notifications dated 26-11-96 and 25-11-97 issued by the Government of Maharashtra as void and illegal. W.P. No. 3041 of 1997 is for setting aside the letter of Intent dated 7th January, 1997 issued by the State Government in favour of Sahara India Housing Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sahara) and to restrain Sahara from carrying out any development on that basis. W.P. No. 2247 of 1997 is also filed as a public interest litigation by an Association from Pune. The prayer made is to declare the Government Notification dated 26-11-96 as null and void. There is also intervention made on behalf of 36 tribals praying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 A question that arises in the Suit is whether the defendant, who according to the plaintiff was allowed to use the premises as a family member, can be termed as a gratuitous licensee, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The issue of jurisdiction is to be tried as a preliminary issue. 2 The plaintiff No.1 and 2 are brothers. They are sons of one John Frederick Gonsalves. Julia was the wife of John Frederick Gonsalves and the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs had a sister named -Agnes Mary Conception Rebello. The defendant is the stepson of Agnes. 3 John F. Gonsalves expired on 3 January 1983 leaving his last will and testament dated 1 April 1979. The will inter-alia dealt with two flats bearing no.501 and 502 in Joanna premises Cooperative Housing Society, Bandra Mumbai. The deceased bequeathed the two flats in the Will as under : I own and possess Flats No.501 and 502 in the Joanna Premises Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., I hereby give devise and bequeath my F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike down the impugned rules notified dated 2.4.2016 issued by R-1 at Annexure-A as being Ultra Vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(G) and 301 of the Constitution of India and etc.This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016, produced as Annexure-A.These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India PRAYING to strike down the Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016, passed by R-1, notified dated 2.4.2016 produced at Annexure-A as being Ultra Vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(G) and 301 of the Constitution of India and etc.) 1. Information Technology, and globalization have revolutionized our lives. The introduc...
Tag this Judgment!