Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1983Cal14
R.N. Pyne, J.1. The respondents Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, as plaintiffs in the Court of the first instance, filed Suit No. 456 of 1965 against Union of India, the defendant in the suit and the appellant before us, for a decree for Rs. 10,017/- in favour of either or alternatively, an enquiry into demages and a decree for such sum as might be found due, interests, costs and other reliefs.2-3. The respondents case as stated in the plaint was as follows:--The respondent No. 1, Ganpatrai Sagarmull acted as a commission agent of the respondent No. 2, K. P. Ramaswami, that in any event if the respondent No. 1 was not competent to maintain the suit, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the said sum by way of damages for non-delivery. After service of the due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of C. P. C. the respondents on or about 16th March, 1965 filed the said suit against the appellant in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This Revision petition is by the Union of India through the Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, by which the learned lower appellate court affirmed the judgment of the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. 2. On first of May, 1973 a contract was entered into between the parties herein for construction of the main sewers at Dinjan within the district of Dibrugarh. The agreement was executed at Shillong. After completion of the work a dispute was raised by the contractor viz. the opposite party herein and as per the terms of the agreement it was referred to the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator gave a non-speaking award, awarding a sum of rupees five lacs and odd in favour of the contractor. It may be mentioned that during the arbitration proceeding the petitioner herein filed a petition under Sections 5 & 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short 'the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD460; 2002(6)ALT326; 2003CriLJ1596
B. Sudershan Reddy, J. 1. This Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-9-2002 made in Contempt Case No. 704 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge by the said order dated 27-9-2002 punished the appellant herein with imprisonment to stand up in the Court till the Court raises and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as fine within two weeks and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The said order is challenged on various grounds by the appellant. 2. In order to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant herein challenging the impugned order, it may be necessary to notice certain basic statutory features enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1968)9GLR340
Y.R. Shah, J.1. These two appeals are preferred against the decisions by this Court (Divan J.) in Second Appeals Nos. 760 of 1960 and 757 of 1960 respectively. The question about the application of the principles of res-judicata arising in these two appeals was negatived by Divan, J. in those two Second Appeals. The facts necessary to understand the points which arise in these Appeals are as follows:2. The plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 1954, in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda who are appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1966 claimed to have obtained a right to cut certain trees standing on 32 survey numbers mentioned in the plaint and also on survey No. 200 of the village Jinjarvani in Chhotaudepur Taluka by two documents dated 25th April, 1954, executed by the Jagirdars of the village. Jiajarvani was admittedly a proprietary Jagir village which would mean that the Jagirdars were the owners of the soil also. It is not disputed that these Jagir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom201; (1937)39BOMLR332
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows : Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in the price of the properties sold, Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3695 OF2020(@ SLP (C) No.11488 OF2020 S.D. CONTAINERS INDORE .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The present appeal has been filed to challenge an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside an order dated 23.03.2020 transferring the suit under Section 22(4) of the Design 2 Act, 20001 to the Calcutta High Court. It is the said order which was set aside by the High Court on 1.9.2020 directing that the Commercial Court, Indore is itself competent to decide the suit in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, 20152.2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from either directly or indirectly copying, using or enabling others to use the plaintiffs design of Container and Lid registered under Design Application Nos. 299039 and 299041 respectively.3. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1922Mad337; 66Ind.Cas.566; (1921)41MLJ577
William Ayling, Offg. C.J.1. Petitioner in this case is the Village Munsif of Sivagiri in Erode Taluk and moves us to interfere in revision and quash certain charges framed against him by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Erode and all proceedings before that Officer connected with the charges. The charges run as follows:(1) That you being a Government servant, actively associated yourself in the movement of non-co-operation against Government by going with Mr. E.V. Ramaswami Nayaker of Erode to the Sivagiri shandy on 26th November 1920 and telling people there hot to vote at the elections of the 30th idem.(2) That you dissuaded and prevented people from recording their votes by making false representations both in the shandy on 26th November ,190 and at the polling station on 30th November 1920 and that the result of voting would involve the increase of taxes and the relinquishment of the voters' properties to those in favour of whom the votes were recorded etc.2. Mr. Adam the Public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 177/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 177/2010 Smt. Champa & Ors. versus Rooplal Date of Order:13. h September, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Sajjan Singh with Mr. Manish Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Dr. Javed Moyal with Mr. Mohsin Dhera, for the respondent. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:-(Oral) (Per Jain, J.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd June, 2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 201/2003, whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by present petitioners was partly allowed. The application of petitioner no.1 Smt. Champa wife of Rooplal was dismissed. Application filed by petitioners no. 1 and 2 namely Kumari Minal and Master Jatin was allowed and respondent Rooplal was directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/- per month to Kumari Minal and Rs. 750/- per mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177/2012. Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai // 1 // 19 D.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 177/2012. Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai .. Date of Order ::11. h September 2013. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. Prabhat Ojha, for the petitioner. Mr. Anuj Sahlot, for the non-petitioner. BY THE COURT: (per Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) Preliminary This criminal revision petition, directed against the order dated 20.01.2012, as passed by the Family Court, Udaipur on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code/Cr.P.C.), was filed by the petitioner, and was dealt with by the office, as a matter to be laid before a Single Judge of this Court. However, this petition has been placed before the Division Bench in view of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.07.2013 holding that this matter is required to be registered as DB Petition for Family Courts and Matr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP368
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. These appeals are under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother, Bhimasankaram J., in S. A. Nos. 923 and 924 of 3953.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. He instituted two suits (O. S. Nos. 293 and 294 of 1950 on the file of the D. M. C. Nandyal) impeaching two alienations made by the 1st defendant, under Exhibits B.12 and B.13 dated 27-8-1937, and for a declaration in both the suits that' the relative alienations would not bind the reversion. The facts which have contributed to this litigation lie in a narrow compass and could be narrated in a few words. One Hanumantha Reddy, who was a divided brother of the appellant, had an only son who was afflicted with serious illness and which caused an apprehension in the mind of Hanumantha Reddy that his son might not survive long. He, therefore, made a will dated 18th June 1923 (Ex. B. 45), the relevant contents of which are given, hereunder :'I have a son by name S...
Tag this Judgment!