Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All596
..... case it was held that no letters patent appeal lay against the judgment of a single judge passed in an appeal under section 39 of the delhi rent control act. 1958 because the appropriate legislature had imposed a bar against any further appeal by making the judgment under section 39(1) 'final' under section 43 of the act. in my opinion, in respect of judgments passed by a single judge of the high court in exercise of jurisdiction and powers conferred by or under a particular statute, the legislature which enacted it or which is competent and empowered under the constitution to amend, alter or repeal the act in question, is the appropriate legislature under article 225 ..... in respect of the matters enumerated in the lists the competent legislature can confer jurisdiction and powers on the existing courts established by the competent legislature or it can create special courts or tribunals, or curtail or abolish the jurisdiction and powers of the existing courts. any legislation in respect of jurisdiction and powers under the three entries must relate to the matters detailed in the corresponding list.38. the next question for consideration, which is the main controversy between the parties, is what legislative field be reserved for the expression 'constitution and organization' so that the field of 'administration of justice' be not unreasonably .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2649; 2009(3)AWC2740(SC); 2009(57)BLJR2083; 2009(6)BomCR413; 2010(I)OLR(SC)452; 2009(5)SCALE559; (2009)6SCC99; 2009(6)LC2774(SC); 2009AIRSCW4075
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Effect of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') by reason of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short 'the 2005 Act') insofar as therein Section 23 has been omitted is the question involved herein.3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix.The property in suit was owned by one Govinda Singh. He purported to have executed a Will in favour of his son, the appellant herein on 29.11.1995. His wife Sakunthala Bai predeceased him. The said Govinda Singh died on 9.01.1996 leaving behind the appellant (original defendant No. 1) and four daughters, viz., Geetha and Vijaya (plaintiffs) and Shanthi and Uma (original defendant Nos. 2 and 3).Indisputably, the parties to the suit were residing in the premises in suit. Govinda Singh was also a government contractor. He was running a business of transport. His daughters were also partners in the firm. Inter alia on the premise that Govinda Singh died intest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:27. 08.2013 Judgment delivered on:17. 12.2013 CS(OS) No.1019/2009 and I.A. No.5351/2011 DR. SHASHI RANJAN GUPTA Through: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Mr. Mehul Gupta & Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Advocates. versus M/S SPRAYLAC PAINTS CORPORATION ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate for defendant No.1. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate for defendant No.2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The two plaintiffs, namely, Dr. Shashi Ranjan Gupta and Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, have filed the present suit to seek a declaration that defendant No.1 M/s Spraylac Paints Corporation a partnership firm of four partners who are named in the memo of parties (hereinafter referred to as Spraylac) has impliedly surrendered the lease in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.M-42, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, having an approximate area of 1000 sq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* 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 : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(4)CTC657
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, by consent of parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioners in W.P.No.4248 of 2001 are the students of the first respondent college namely K.K.College of Pharmacy, Saligramam, Chennai. The said college is functioning from the academic year October 1992. Initially it was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and was recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi under the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pharmacy Act') to impart education in Bachelor of Pharmacy course. In view of the enactment of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'AICTE Act'), the said college was approved by the Council constituted under the said Act from the year 1994 and was affiliated to Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, and there was no approval from the Pharmacy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(2)CTC26
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioners do not dispute the fact that they had encroached on the Main Road in Mettur Dam years ago. The respondent Town Panchayat had been collecting encroachment fees. In the year 1990, the respondent took steps to evict the petitioners. W.P. Nos. 3892, 4836 and 4837 were filed in 1991 and these Writ Petitions were allowed as follows:'In case, the petitioners are encroachers, it is open to the Mettur Town Committee, Mettur Dam, Salem District, to take action against the petitioners according to law, after giving notice to the petitioners. It is also well settled that even assuming that the petitioners are encroachers, procedure prescribed for eviction of encroachment had to be followed before dispossessing the encroachers.'Thereafter notices were issued in June, 1992 Under Section 182(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act) giving 15 days to remove the encroachments. Though the Mettur Town is governed by the Mettur Townshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ592
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, an octogenarian, aggrieved by the order of eviction suffered by him on 27th September, 1997 preferred the present revision petition and after nearly six years the question whether the landlady would succeed in her endeavour and realise the fruits of this long drawn legal battle waged by her to recover the possession of her property from her never-say-die tenant is to be determined now, in this revision, nearly one and half decades after she first moved the Court below for relief.2. Of that there could be no doubt that this legal battle was fought passionately and bitterly, at times the parties going for each other's jugular veins the tenant taking the lead in this regard by filing an application under Section 340(2) read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. for holding a preliminary inquiry as to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 209 of the IPC by the landlord, followed closely by a similar application by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ87
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting petitioner's prayer for eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The petitioner filed the eviction petition claiming that the respondent was a tenant under her in respect of the petition property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had failed to pay rent of the said property from 1-2-1984 to 30-9-1985 in spite of several demands and legal notice dated 12-6-1985. She further claimed in the petition that the petition premises is required by her for the bona fide use and occupation of herself and her family members. (ii) The learned Munsiff on a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioner and the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1967SC1360; [1967]3SCR59
Bhargava, J. 1. A suit for ejectment on the ground of failing to pay arrears of rent was instituted against the appellant, Bant Singh Gill, by the respondents under the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (No. 38 of 1952) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952', on the 27th February, 1958. On 9th February, 1959, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (No. 59 of 1958) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958', came into force and became applicable to the premises which were the subject-matter of he pending suit. On 13th March, 1961, the appellant, relying on the provisions of s. 50(2) of the Act of 1958, filed an application before the trial Court requesting it to hold that the suit had abated on the ground that the suit related to premises the construction of which had been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955. The trial Court, after taking into account the evidence, recorded a finding that the appellant had failed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC175
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 26.3.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2001 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 19.3.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in case No. 74-1 of 1998.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 24.6.1991 passed by Collector Sadar, Sub Division, Bilaspur and order dated 12.3.1997 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi are void and not binding on appellant inasmuch as the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short 'Public Premises Act') is not applicable, the appellant is a tenant in the suit premises. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the appellant has also been prayed. In case appellant is dispossessed from the suit premises during the pendency of the suit then possession may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!