Court : Supreme Court of India
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF2005Videocon International Ltd. ... Appellant versus Securities & Exchange Board of India ... Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, the SEBI Act) was enacted to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as, the Board) was vested with statutory powers to effectively deal with all matters relating to the capital market.2. The functions of the Board have been depicted in Section 11 of the SEBI Act. Under Section 11 of the SEBI Act, the powers of the Board include, the power to suspend the trading of any security in a recognized stock-exchange; the power to restrain from accessing the securities market and prohibit any person associated with the securities mark...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR299; 2005(5)BomCR832
Britto N.A., J.1. These are plaintiffs second appeals.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suits.3. The plaintiff is the owner of a property known as 'Maddem' having land registration No. 29031, Matriz No. 2290 surveyed under No. 114/5 with a house in it, situated in Umtawaddo of Calangute village.4. The plaintiff by virtue of an agreement dated 24-9-1976 let out to defendant No. 1 the said house as per the plan attached with compound at the back of the house and a strip of land which went up to the seashore; on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 775/-. The lease was for a period of 22 years from 1-4-1976, for the purpose of running a guest house. Considering the nature of the business, it was agreed between the parties that rent would be Rs. 425/- per month for the first year and with a proportionate increase of Rs. 50/- every subsequent year. Clause 9 of the said deed, which is most relevant, reads as follows :-'The lessee sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners, Mst. Mastura Sultan (who expired after filing of the present petition) and her children have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 26th May, 1982 passed by the Custodian General of evacuee property dismissing their revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Evacuee Act, 1950, for short) and upholding the order dated 14th February, 1980 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), inter alia, holding that the property in their occupation bearing No. 4487/92A/52, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi is an evacuee property. The petitioners have also prayed for declaration that the property in their occupation is not an evacuee property and other incidental relief's.2. In the year 1947, partition of India saw migration of a large number of persons. These migrants left behind moveable and immovable assets, when they migrated to settle down either in India or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi820
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) These cross-appeals (Nos. 50-D and 103-D) were filed against the judgment and decree in a suit instituted on October 1, 1955 on behalf of Messrs Birdhi Chand Girdhari Lal Jain and six others. The suit was against Messrs Kannya Lal Sham Lal and five others. On April 15, 1961 it was partly decreed by Shri R. L. Lamba, Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. The decree passed in favor of the plaintiffs was for ejectment of the defendants from the portions shown red and yellow in the plan (Exhibit P/l) attached to the plaint and for recovering Rs. 20,836/10/8. The amount decreed comprised of Rs. 14,400.00 on account of arrears of rent, Rs. 4,836/10/8 as damages and Rs. 1,600.00 as electric charges. The plaintiffs were as well allowed proportionate cost of the suit. (2) In this appeal the defendants claimed that no decree should have been passed against them either for eviction or recovering any amount on account of arrears of rent, damages or electric charges. The judgme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H291
Bishan Narain, J. 1. Raj Krishan Jain is the owner of a doublestorey building bearing Municipal Numbers 4231 and 4236. This building stands on plot No.11 which is part of Kothi No. 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Each portion consists of four flats and each flat has been given on rent to a different tenant. Thus eight, tenants occupy this building. On the application of some of the tenants for fixation of standard rent under section 7A read with Schedule IV of the Delhi and Aimer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, the Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 453/- for the whole building and then apportioned it between the various tenants. Dissatisfied with this order the landlord appealed to the District Judge, Delhi who dismissed it. The landlord then applied under Articles .226 and 227 of the Constitution to this Court seelang to quash the order of the District Judge. Falshaw J. treated this petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and dismissed it. The landlord has filed this a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H501
ORDERBishan Narain, J.1. The premises known as 2 Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi, belonged at One time to Lakhmi Chand. He let the same to Sri Krishan Aggarwal for purposes of residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 38/3/-. Lakhmi Chand gifted the promises to his son Satya Dev on 19th June, 1956, The donee filed the present suit for eviction of the tenant on 27th August, 1956 on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his residence and that he had no other suitable place for this purpose. The tenant inter alia pleaded (i) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (2) that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the premises for his residence. The trial court rejected both these defences but made the ejectment decree conditional on the filing of an affidavit that the plaintiff's marriage would take place within the next three months. The tenant appealed against the ejectment decree while the landlord filed cross-objections, to get the condition so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC396; (1974)1SCC202; [1974]2SCR530; 1974(6)LC237(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. This litigation, started in 1951, has lived long, although the main point on which the fate of the case rests is the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968) and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal market, one Habibullah (the father of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968). The present appellant is the legal representative of the defendant and has himself filed an appeal (C.A. No. 1728 of 1968) where the Board is the sole respondent. Instant or early justice seems impossible without radical re-orientation and systematic changes in the judicial process, as these two appeals, which have survived two decades, sadly illustrate.2. Now, a brief narration of the facts. Although the canvass has been spread out, the relevant dispute lies in a narrow compass, and can be resolved by a close look at the terms of Ex. '1' (substantially repeated in Ex. '4') and by applying settled rules which te...
Tag this Judgment!