Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC502IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SUIT No.4 OF2021THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ...PLAINTIFF(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ...DEFENDANT(S) INDEX Sl. No.Particulars Para Nos. I. INTRODUCTION13 II. SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT414 III. SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF1521 IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK2231 a. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 22-29 b. Article 131 of the Constitution 30-31 V. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS3243 a. State of Bihar v. Union of India 32-33 b. State of Rajasthan v. Union of 34-43 India VI. CONSIDERATION4483 a. Reading of the Plaint 44-51 b. Scheme of the DSPE Act 52-66 c. Power of superintendence of the Central Government 67 d. Interpretation of the term 68-77 subject to the provisions of this Constitution e. Suppression of material fact 78-79 80-83 f. Cause of action of the suit VII. CONCLUSION841 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.I. INTRODUCTION:1. The present suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking the following reliefs: i. Pass ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC518REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOOF2024Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.................of 2024 (@ Diary No.17885 of 2020) THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal, by the State of Punjab assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed in RSA No.447 of 2004 (O & M), whereby the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at SLP (CIVIL) D. No.17885 OF2020Page 1 of 27 Chandigarh allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff- respondent, set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession.4. The dispute relates to land admeasuring 2176.6 sq. yards located in Khewat No.702/1146/Khasra No.116/26/2/15 situated at Samana, Tehsil-Samana, District-Patiala (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable 2024 INSC507IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.434 OF2013PYDI RAMANA @ RAMULU APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAVARASETY MANMADHA RAO RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.1. The appellant who is the original defendant before the trial Court has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 07.06.2011 whereunder the second appeal filed by him in S.A No.1282 of 2008 came to be partly allowed, confirming the order of the appellate court passed in A.S. No.39 of 2004 which granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and directed the 1 respondent-plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration namely twice the sale consideration.2. We have heard the arguments of Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant and Shri D. Bharat Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent perused the records. Brief Background 3. The respondent herein who was the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC515REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.. OF2024(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2024) @Diary No.14716 of 2017) UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS INDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J.1. Delay, if any, is condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby, it dismissed the civil revision registered as CRP(PD) No.1872 of 2016 and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC registered as Application No.3666 of 2016 in SLP (CIVIL) D. No.14716 OF2017Page 1 of 11 Commercial Suit No.323 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in both the proceedings is before this Court.4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is as follows: A Leave and License agreement was originally entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 25.11.2008. This agreement was supers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC492NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1957 OF2011NASEEM KAHNAM AND OTHERS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ZAHEDA BEGUM (DEAD) BY LR. AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.I. FACTUAL MATRIX1 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal have filed O.S. No.13/2000 before the Court of Principal District Judge at Vishakhapatnam. The suit is for partition and possession of plaint schedule property. The prayer reads thus: a) for partition of plaint schedule property and allot Western half portion of the house with the Western adjoining vacant site to the 2nd plaintiff and the remaining Eastern portion building with vacant site on Eastern side has to be partitioned into four equal shares and allot one such share i.e. 1/4th of the plaint 1 schedule on Eastern side to the 1st plaintiff and for delivery of the same;2. The plaint schedule consists of a residential house bearing door No.6.18.7 in East Point Layout, Plot No.10, LIG, T.S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - NC:2024. KHC:26312 WP No.22403 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.22403 OF2022(GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJA POOJARTHI, D/O. KORATHI POOJARTHI, AGED ABOUT52YEARS, R/AT. KOTATHATTU VILLAGE, POST: KOTA 576 221, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KOTA SRILAKSHMI URALA, W/O. LATE DR. SEETHARAMA URALA, AGED ABOUT61YEARS, KOTATHATTU VILLAGE 576 221, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, NOW AT BANGALORE, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, MR. A. RAGHURAMA HEBBAR, 436, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, HIG COLONY, RMV2D STAGE, BANGALORE 560 094. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER - 2 - NC:2024. KHC:26312 WP No.22403 of 2022 DTD1510.2022 PASSED IN EX.CASE.NO.06/2008 ON I.A.NO.28 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION, KUNDAPURA,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE2024INSC494IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6495 OF2023THANKAMMA GEORGE ... APPELLANT VERSUS LILLY THOMAS AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S.V.N. BHATTI, J.I. FACTUAL MATRIX1 Thankamma George/Appellant, and Lilly Thomas/Respondent No.1, are sisters, and the daughters of one late George. P.M. Thomas/Respondent No.2 is the husband of Respondent No.1. The Appellant filed O.S. No.139 of 2011 dated 11.05.2011 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pathanamthitta for the relief of declaration that the Appellant is the sole title holder of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession from the Respondents. The Appellant prayed that she be declared as the exclusive and sole owner of one-half of the plaint schedule property, sale deed No.345/2008 dated 16.04.2008 (Ex. A-5) of 1 Enathu Sub-Registrar office as void ab initio, for consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC500REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7254 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.29334 OF2016 M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS PRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7255 OF2024(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.29335 OF2016 JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J: For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: INDEX A. FACTUAL MATRIX.............................................................................................. 3 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ....................................... 13 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT No.6/Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) ........................................................ 16 D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ...................................................................... 21 E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE CODE ............... 21 F. ANALYSIS .......................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC499Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.864 OF2022MUTHYALA SUNIL KUMAR PETITIONER (S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No.1243/2023 in W.P.(C) No.864/2022 AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.756/2023 WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No.1244/2023 in W.P.(C) No.756/2023 AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.819/2023 WITH CONMT.PET.(C) No.1245/2023 in W.P.(C) No.819/2023 AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.1033/2023 WITH CONMT.PET. (Diary No.46438/2023) in W.P. (C) No.1033 of 2023 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.864 OF2022ETC.ETC. Page 1 of 11 WITH W.P.(C) No.998/2023 W.P.(C) No.1043/2023 W.P.(C) No.1058/2023 W.P.(C) No.1064/2023 W.P.(C) No.1047/2023 W.P.(C) No.1059/2023 W.P.(C) No.1066/2023 W.P.(C) No.1103/2023 W.P.(C) No.1104/2023 W.P.(C) No.1105/2023 W.P.(C) No.970/2023 W.P.(C) No.975/2023 W.P.(C) No.1034/2023 W.P.(C) No.1007/2023 W.P.(C) No.996/2023 W.P.(C) No.984/2023 W.P.(C) No.1015/2023 W.P.(C) No.995/2023 W.P.(C) No.1000/2023 W.P.(C) No.1039/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC493IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1188/2015 G.M. SHAHUL HAMEED APPELLANT VERSUS JAYANTHI R. HEGDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT DIPANKAR DATTA, J.1. The substantial question arising for decision in this civil appeal is whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 1 CPC, hereafter Page 1 2. Assail in this civil appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26th September, 20112 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru3 whereby His Lordship set aside the order dated 19th October, 2010 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Judge-III, Mangalore4 and allowed the petition5 preferred...
Tag this Judgment!