Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 17Ind.Cas.952
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon 14 Bom. L.R. 833 : 16 C.W.N. 961 : 12 M.L.T. 195 : (1912) M.W.N. 781 : 16 Cri.L.J. 245 : 22 M.L.J. 276 : 10 A.L.J. 271 : 5 Bur. L.T. 205 207 : 16 Ind. Cas. 188. Prima facie, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)600; AIR1996SC1321; 1996(1)ARBLR153(SC); JT1996(1)SC222a; 1996(1)SCALE237; (1996)2SCC132; [1996]1SCR245
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel, for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 8, 1991 passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The aforesaid decision was made by the Division Bench of the High Court on a reference by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in the said Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The learned Single Judge having disagreed with a decision by a Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India v. D.S. Nanda & Co., in Civil Revision No. 33(H) of 1985 (1991 GLJ 400) that no revision lies against the appellate judgment passed in the appeal Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, referred the Revision Case to the Division Bench for deciding the maintainability of the Revision Petition filed under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills 1937, against the appellate order dated March 28, 1968 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi87
ORDER1. The Plaintiff claiming to be the registered proprietor and grantee of Indian Patent No. 1133W dated 29th November, 1967. Pertaining to air cooler by this application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from adapting the method and Process for manufacturing, selling or offering for sale air coolers in infringement of the plaintiff's aforesaid patent with further relief for rendition of accounts. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that he has legal right to the aforementioned patent for the period ending 29th November 1983, and to refrain others from exploiting the said patent rights without permission from him. According to the Plaintiff the air cooler of the subject patent has distinct advantages ever the air cooler presently known in the art and that the coolers of the subject patent have acquired status and reputation The Grievance of the Plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978AP97
1. The point that arises for determination is whether in view of S. 100A of the Civil P. C., a Letters Patent Appeal lies from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal from an order of remand made by the lower appellate Court while disposing of an appeal.FACTS:2. The respondents filed the suit O. S. No. 122/66 before the District Munsif, Giddalur for partition of a bus with all its accessories into sixteen shares and for allotment of three such shares to them or to apply the provisions of the Partnership Act and for an account of all realisations made by the 1st defendant. Various issues were framed but the trial of the suit was confined to the issue as regards the maintainability of the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable as the alleged partnership was opposed to public policy and offends the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and S. 23 of the Contract Act.3. Aggrieved by that decision, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1969Mad235
Ramamurti, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother; with respect, I entirely agree with his reasonings and conclusions. The only justification for my writing a separate judgment is (as Lord Campbell observed in Piers v. Piers, (1849) 2 HL Cas 331 9 ER 1 118 observed at page 1136), the tremendous responsibility that is cast upon us while rendering this decision which will have grave and serious consequences upon the status of the child. We have bestowed anxious and careful thought over all the aspects of the matter and have reached the clear conclusion that applying all the standards of strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt, as insisted in all matrimonial cases, the appellant had made out a case for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (referred to herein as the Act) i. e. on the ground that the respondent had had sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant The prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1982Delhi117
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) On April 17, 1979 Shri B. B. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi confirmed a temporary injunction issued in favor of Shri Brij Bhushan Bindal applicant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) restraining Seth Banarsi Das Gupta, opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) from interfering in the management .of the property known as modern Industries situated at Sahibabad till partition of Hindu Undivided Properties and restraining Central Bank of India, Shahdra Delhi opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2) from stopping the operation of bank account of Modern Industries. Defendant No. 1 brought an appeal against the said order which was accepted by me on April 29, 1981 and the injunction issued by the learned Additional District Judge was vacated. On May 5, 1981 plaintiff brought the present petition (being R. A. 36 of 1981) for reviewing my aforesaid judgment dated April 29, 1981 on the basis that there were erro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1887)ILR9All625
Mahmood, J.1. The fact that Her Majesty has omitted for several years to fill up a vacancy does not alter the constitution of the Court or make it illegal; nor does it amount to altering Section 2 of the Letters Patent. If your argument is correct, supposing a Judge were to die, the whole working of the Court would be brought to a standstill until his successor could be appointed.2. To comply with the provisions of Section 2, the vacancy must be filled up within a reasonable time. Otherwise the executive could at pleasure alter the constitution of the Court, and even reduce the Court to a single Judge. This cannot have been intended. Section 7 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed when a vacancy occurs, but the powers given by the section have not been exercised. The vacancy now in question occurred in 1873.Tyrrell, J.3. Probably it was inconsequence of the transfer of jurisdiction in rent cases to the Board of Revenue. It was thought that this would greatly reduce the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243
Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1943Bom12; (1942)44BOMLR819
Macklin, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits brought by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit brought by the family of Laxman, who was Ramchandra's brother. Each suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the two eldest members; and for a proper understanding of them it is necessary to set out the facts at some length.2. Ramchandra and Laxman went to Bombay from the Ratnagiri district more than fifty years ago and worked at the Mint; and though Laxman appears to have been the more able of the two and to have earned more money and had a better head for business, they both managed to save a certain amount of money, and they kept three joint accounts with three different banks in Bombay. Laxman, as the better business man of the two, was given a power-of-attorney by Ramchandra; and it seems that the practice of the brothers was that when any transactions affec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)115PLR643
R.L. Anand, J.1. By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Revision Nos. 3079 of 1995 (Harbans Singh Kohli and Ors. v. Man Singh and Ors.), and 3797 of 1995 (Man Singh and Anr. v. H.S. Kohli and Ors.) as both these revision petitions have arisen from one judgment dated 7th June, 1995, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana, who partly accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs (petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995) and allowed in part the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., filed by the plaintiffs Man Singh and Paramjit Singh Bhatia, who are the petitioners of C.R. No. 3797 of 1995, and granted temporary injunction in their favour restraining the sale of 1292 equity shares of the land measuring 1200 sq. yards till the disposal of the suit against the defendants, i.e., H.S. Kohli; H.S. Kohli and Sons - H.U.F. Firm; Smt. Arvinder Kaur Kohli and M/s Preet Builders Private Limited. It may be mentioned here that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 aforesaid have filed a separate Civil Re...
Tag this Judgment!