Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-25-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.574/2010 Reserved on:3. d September, 2013 Decided on:25. h October, 2013 % M/S ATMA RAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Sethi and Mr. Mukesh Ranjan, Advocates. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Defendant Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 On 5th March, 2013 issues were framed by this Court wherein Issue No.4, which reads as under, was treated as a preliminary issue. 4.2. Whether the present suit is barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act?. (OPD) The objection of the Defendant is that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of possession, recovery of a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores, damages and cost of the suit in respect of property situated at Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The Defendant has been a tenant in the building since 14th May, 1948 pursuant to Rent Deed executed between th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Decided on : Jul-29-2013
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.342/2003 Lehri Bai Vs. Bherulal Date of Order :29. 07.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT : REPORTABLE This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20.2.2003 passed by the executing court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed. Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the respondent-decree-holder filed Civil Original Suit No.164/1980 on 16.10.1980 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, denial of title and reasonable and bonafide necessity under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950'). The suit was set ex-parte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-16-2013
* + THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI C.S. (O.S.) No.1633/1983 Date of Decision:16. 12.2013 .Plaintiff RAMA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Ramesh Vats, Advs for the plaintiff Versus D.D.A./M.C.D. (SLUM WING) Through: ....Defendant Dr. K.S Sidhu, Sr. Adv, with Ms. Maldeep Singh, Adv for the defendant/DDA CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 60,79,875/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. A brief summary of the facts leading to the instant suit is as follows:2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the defendant, held a public auction on March 12, 1982, for sale of a commercial plot admeasuring 351 sq. yds at No.9, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (suit property). Rama Associates, the plaintiff participated in the auction and being the highest bidder at Rs. 186 lakhs, its bid was accepted on March 20, 1982.In accordance with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-21-2013
MohitS. Shah, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred for our opinion: (1) What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? (2) Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would be maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act ? 2. For giving answers to the above questions, we propose to proceed in the following manner:Para Nos.Page Nos.(i)Indicating brief facts leading to this reference3 to 64 to 5(ii)Setting out the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties7 to 96 to 15(iii)Statutory provisions1016 to 18(iv)Giving broad analysis of rival submissions on maintainability of revision.1118 to 20(v)Relevant consideration for correct perspective12 to 1920 to 26(vi)Brief exposition of the principle on maintainability of revision20 to 2426 to 31(vii)Analysis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
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 : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-19-2013
Lord Hope (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr agree) 1. These proceedings arise out of the deaths of three young men who lost their lives while serving in the British Army in Iraq and the suffering by two other young servicemen of serious injuries. The units in which they were serving were sent to Iraq as part of Operation TELIC. This operation, which lasted from January 2003 to July 2009, had two distinct phases of military activity. The first began on 19 March 2003 when Iraq was invaded by coalition forces including those from the United Kingdom. The second phase began on 1 May 2003 when major combat operations ceased and were replaced by a period of military occupation. During much of that time there was a constant threat of enemy action by insurgents opposed to the interim Iraqi government. 2. On 25 March 2003 Corporal Stephen Allbutt, who was the husband of the claimant Ms Deborah Allbutt, Lance Corporal Daniel Twiddy and Trooper Andrew Julien were serving with the Que...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
APPEALS RELATING TO DEATH SENTENCE PART-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 of 2007 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.609-610 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.628-629 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.637-638 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.864-865 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.941-942 of 2008 AND Death Reference Case No.1 of 2011 ******** REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 OF 200.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra thr., CBI, Bombay .... Respondent(s) With Batch JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against the final orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-11-2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 These Writ Petitions raise the issue of constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short NIA Act). 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.4049/2012 are referred to. 4 It is stated that the Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused No.1 in C.R. No.I130/ 2008 lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon on 30.09.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with ten other accused in the wake of a bomb blast that took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-2013
APPEALS RELATING TO LIFE SENTENCE PART-2 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1178 of 2007 Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai ...Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.419 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1440 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1441 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 979-980 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 633 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 651-652 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 AND 65.of 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!