Court : Patna
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. These two aforementioned Misc. appeals under Section 39(i)(vi) of the Arbitration Act arise out of the common judgment and order dated 30-11-1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge I, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. 29 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below affirmed the award passed by the arbitrator but set aside the award of grant of interest during the pendency of arbitration proceeding. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. An agreement was executed by and between National Coal Development Corporation now Central Coalfield Limited and M/s. S. K. Samanta and Company on 4th April, 1975 for the execution of work of diversion of Godo Nala at Bokaro Colliery in the district of Giridih. Subsequently disputes and differences arose with regard to payment of bills and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant-Central Coalfield Limited appointed Mr. P.N.S. Pradeep. General Manager Transport as arbitrator by letter dated 14-1-1983 and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom316; (1944)46BOMLR663
Sen, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the opponents in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Jalgaon against the petitioner for setting aside five award decrees obtained by the latter in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Pimpalgasn and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said decrees. The plaintiffs at first framed the suit somewhat differently; instead of seeking to set aside the five decrees they sought a declaration that they had been fraudulently obtained and were hence not binding on them, as well as an injunction against the defendant, and they applied to the Court to be allowed to amend the plaint as above. As' originally framed, the claim in the suit was valued thus : for declaration in the case of each decree Rs. 200 and for injunction in each case Rs. 5. The total valuation thus being Rs. 1,025, it was a suit falling within the description of Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ARBLR93(Bom); 2006(2)BomCR596; (2006)108BOMLR67
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of a learned Single Judge dated 18thJanuary 1996 in Arbitration Petition No.184 of 1992. The Arbitration Petitioninvoked Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to challenge an award dated 6th August1992 made by the second respondent, who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in disputes anddifferences arising out of a contract awarded by the Appellants in favour of firstrespondent herein. 2. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed bythe Appellant to challenge the aforesaid award. Aggrieved by refusal to interfere in theaward by the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court underArbitration Act as well as Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been invoked by the AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 3. The facts about which there is no dispute, may be now set out. First Respondent isa registered Contractor with the Appellant herein. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR4637; 2006(6)KarLJ617
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. These four appeals are arising out of a common orders passed on issue Nos.7 to 9 and on maintainability of the suit. The appellants in these appeals were plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 2045/97 to 2048/97. Since the averments in the plaints in the four suits and the contentions in the written statements are similar, these appeals are heard together by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.2. Four suits were filed by the plaintiffs against different defendants and out of them defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are common in all suits and only the defendant No. 2 in the suits are different. They are, Doraiswamy Naidu in O.S.No. 2045/97, T.N. Venkatebh in O.S.NO. 2046/97, E. Govinda Naidu in O.S.NO. 2047/9? and T. Krishnam Naidu in 2048/97.3. Four suits were filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:To cancel the sale deed dt. 13.9.1993 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in all the suits and to cancel the sale deed dated 15.9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007AP142; 2007(2)ALD573; 2007(3)ALT403
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 185 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Bodhan, filed this second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal, both of them died and their legal representatives are brought on record. The suit was filed by the sole respondent herein for the reliefs of:(a) cancellation of the order of confirmation of sale, dated 6-2-1978 passed in E.P. No. 18 of 1974 in O.S. No. 7 of 1972;(b) for recovery of possession of the property sold thereunder;(c) for recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year from the date of suit; and for a decree for Rs. 3,000/- towards damages.2. On an earlier occasion, the 1st appellant filed O.S. No. 7 of 1972 against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,724/- in the Court of District Munsif, Bodhan. The suit was decreed on 30-12-1973. After the decree became final, he filed E.P. No. 18 of 1974 and brought the house of the respondent to sale. The 2nd appellant became the auction purchaser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All864
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. These are three appeals by certain second mortgagees, and a lessee of the mortgagor, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated ,the 7th of September, 1922, rejecting an application fo set aside under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree absolute for foreclosure. The parties are persons of position, but the history of the case illustrates the astounding complications and delays whch arise in this country, in effecting service, in fixing dates for hearing, in determining the real controversy between the parties, and in enforcing decrees, and also the difficulties with which' this Court is frequently confronted, owing to the gross negligence of the officials in the subordinate courts, instances of which generally come to our notice when it is too late to investigate the matter with any hope of saddling the responsibility on the right shoulders. This case, in which the only substantial issue, namely, how much is du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh24
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This revision is preferred by one of the defendants against the order by which the defendants' appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been dismissed by order dated 22-1-1999 passed by Smt. Nirmala Singh, Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower appellate Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 47/ 98. In this appeal, the defendants had challenged the order dated 17-10-1997 passed by Shri S. S. Netam, IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 17/97 by which their application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23-7-1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 117-A/88 by the trial Court was rejected.2. This case demonstrates how a pedantic and hyper-technical view taken by the Court while considering an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H139
Kapur, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs against an appellate decree of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, confirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession.2. The facts of the case are that Shankar Singh, tile father of the plaintiffs; contracted several debts and one of them was due to Hem Raj. defendant 1. On 29-3-1934 Hem Raj obtained an ex parte decree for Rs. 800/- against Shankar Singh and in execution of his decree the land in dispute was sold for RS. 1,000/- on 4-10-1937 subject to a mortgage of Rs. 2,100/-.The sale certificate was obtained on 14-1-1938 and the present suit was brought alleging that the original debt on the basis of which the ex parte decree was obtained was without consideration and legal necessity and was not binding upon the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that as a matter of fact no debt was due and the decree was obtained by fraud and the sole was vitiated by the fact that it was sold for a low pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1972CriLJ93
H.R. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revision 318 of 1968 has been referred to the Full Bench for decision but the main question that we are called upon to determine is at to what is the terminus a quo for reckoning the period of limitation for an application to have the ex carte order of maintenance made under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, set aside when it is alleged that the respondent against whom the said order was passed was not duly served and that he acquired knowledge of the order only within three months preceding the date of the application made by him in this behalf. The answer indisputably depends on the interpretation of proviso to Section 488 (6). Chapter XXXVI of the Code confers a statutory right of maintenance upon a wife or a child when the husband of the father, as the case may be, having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them. The enforcement of this right is by means of a summary procedure as stated in the said chapter and Section 488 (6) appearing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)3MLJ22(SC); [2000]1SCR1045
U.C. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal pertains to the question of validity of court sale in regard to an immovable property.2. The facts in the appeal may briefly be adverted in order to appreciate the issue involved effectively.3. The petitioner is a stranger auction purchaser of a house property sold in court and ion on 31st July, 1978 in pursuance of a mortgage deals dated 4.6.1975 passed in C.S. No. 1245 of 1973 in the file of the court of District Munsif, Rajamundhry, Andhra Pradesh. The court sale of the house property was effected upon payment of 25% of the sale price offered by the highest bidder. Subsequently, the sale was confirmed on 31st July 1978 upon payment of the full purchase once.4. On 26th August, 1978 the respondents herein filed an application to set aside the auction sale dated 31st July, 1978. The learned District Munsif Rajamundhry, however, by an order dated 31st August, 1978 rejected this said application and thereafter confirmed the sale and disposed of the Executi...
Tag this Judgment!