Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)1CALLT24(HC)
s.n. mallick, j. 1. the instant revislonal application under article 227 of the constitution of india has been preferred by the judgment debtor petitioner against the order dated 27.7.93 passed by the learned additional district judge. first court, nadia, in civil revision case no. 1 of 1992 under section 115a of the civil procedure code affirming the order no. 175 dated 14.12.91 passed by the learned munsif kalyani, nadia in misc. judicial case no. 69 of 1991 under section 47 of the civil procedure code arising out of title execution case no. 17 of 1987. the learned munsif by his order dated 14.12.91 held that the aforesaid misc. case brought by the present petitioner judgment debtor is barred by limitation and that the same is also barred by the principles of res judlcata under section 11 of the civil procedure code. the learned additional district judge has affirmed both the above findings of the executing court under the impugned order.2. at the beginning it must be borne in mind that the scope of the present application under article 227 of the constitution of india is very limited. in other words, this high court in such matters cannot apply the principles of section 115 of civil procedure code. it is well settled in law that the power of the high court under article 227 would not be exercised by it to substitutes its own judgment whether on a question of fact or of law in place of the sub-ordlnate courts or to correct an error not being an error of law apparent on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 26 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi + cs(os) 2476/2013 date of decision :08. h september, 2014 % bharti airtel ltd ..... plaintiff through: mr.sudeep chatterjee and ms.deepthi alexander, advocates versus airtelasia & ors through ..... defendant coram: hon'ble mr. justice g.s.sistani g.s.sistani, j.(oral) 1. present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining violation and infringement of rights in the trade mark/trade name/logo/label airtel , trade dress, domain name, passing off and dilution, damages/rendition of accounts and delivery up.2. summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued on 11.12.2013 and 21.05.2014. affidavit of service has been filed to show that the defendants have been served. despite service, none has chosen to appear on behalf of the defendants. accordingly, the defendants are proceeded ex parte.3. counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaint is duly supported by the affidavit of mr p l lamba, vice president (legal), the affidavit to be treated as an affidavit by way of evidence. as per the plaint, the plaintiff company is one of the biggest telecom companies engaged in a variety of services including cellular phones, broadband and internet services, satellite, carrier, international services, calling cards, e-business services, etc. its flagship brand and mark is the airtel mark which is now a globally well-known name and mark. it is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff company was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi + rc.rev. 275/2014 & cm134372014 (stay) reserved on:21. t april, 2015 decided on:20. h may, 2015 % om prakash through ..... petitioner mr. puneet goel, adv. versus gurdev singh through ..... respondent mr. sudhir batra, adv. coram: hon'ble ms. justice mukta gupta mukta gupta, j.1. an eviction petition was filed by the respondent gurdev singh under section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act (in short the drc act). in the eviction petition it was stated that gurdev singh was a senior citizen who has two sons and two daughters. both the daughters were married. his two sons tarsem and dalvir had two children each. dalvir singh is residing in u.k. and keeps coming to delhi to meet his family. gurdev singh is the owner of premises no.507, street no.5a, govindpuri, kalkaji property admeasuring 116 sq.yards (in short the suit property) consists of ground floor, first floor in which 5 rooms on the ground floor have been let out to 5 tenants and out of 5 rooms on the first floor 3 are occupied by the other tenants and one room is in occupation of om prakash which is the tenanted premises in question. rc.rev. 275/2014 thus, the tenanted premises with om prakash page 1 of 6 comprises of one room measuring 8 feet x 8 feet, common latrine and bathroom on a monthly rent of ` 1420/- excluding water and electricity charges. gurdev singh also owns property no.c-502, sheet no.5a govindpuri measuring 75 sq.yds. which consists of ground floor, first .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
united states v. brooks - 51 u.s. 442 (1850) u.s. supreme court united states v. brooks, 51 u.s. 10 how. 442 442 (1850) united states v. brooks 51 u.s. (10 how.) 442 error to the circuit court of the united states for the district of louisiana syllabus a supplementary article to a treaty between the united states and the caddo indians providing that certain persons "shall have their right to the said four leagues of land reserved for them and their heirs and assigns forever, the said lands to be taken out of the lands ceded to the united states by the said caddo nation of indians as expressed in the treaty to which these articles are supplementary. and the four leagues of land shall be laid off," &c.;, gave to the reservees a fee simple to all the rights which the caddoes had in those lands, as fully as any patent from the government could make one. nothing further was contemplated by the treaty to perfect the title. the facts are very fully set forth in the opinion of the court, to which the reader is referred. page 51 u. s. 445 mr. justice wayne delivered the opinion of the court. this is another chapter in our dealings with indians, and it illustrates our character and theirs in such transactions. the case will be better understood from its history, than by the discussion of points which it suggests. after the narrative, our conclusion will be brief. page 51 u. s. 446 it was a petition filed by the united states in consequence of the passage of the following joint .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2632; (1999)3UPLBEC1914
d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner claims to have been appointed on 14th september. 1995, in the post of chowkidar in the mahatma gandhi sniarak inter college, sonkh, district mathura. according to him, instead of paying salary to him, one kali charan, respondent ho. 6 has been purported to have been appointed and paid salary. there is a dispute with regard to the appointment of two persons. mr. ajay bahnot. learned counsel for the petitioner, holding brief of mr. ashok khare contends that only by a letter dated 25th september, 1995, the district inspector of schools, mathura, had directed the committee of management to appoint kali charan under the dying-in-hamess rules on account of death of ramesh chandra, laboratory assistant on 4th december, 1994, being father of kali charan. therefore, there having been no vacancy and the vacancy having been filled up on 14th september, 1995. kali charan could not have been appointed pursuant to the letter dated 25th september, 1995. according to him. by the letter dated 20th october. 1995, the deputy director, agra, had directed the district. inspector of schools to cancel the appointment of kali charan in mahatma gandhi smarak inter college. mathura and adjust him in janta vidyalaya inter college, magora, mathura and to appoint the petitioner in the mahatma gandhi smarak inter college and pay him salary. according to him, the letter of appointment was issued to kali charan on 27th october, 1995, namely, after the receipt of the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj10; (1961)2GLR509
* * * * * * * * 4. mr. n. c. shah, learned advocate of the appellant, has raised two contentions -- (1) that a suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud in the service of summons in not maintainable; and (2) that on the facts of the case, the fraud alleged in the plaint is not proved. mr. shah has urged that a suit is not competent to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground that the service of the summons in the suit was improperly effected as a result of which an ex parte order was passed by the court which passed the decree, and the only remedy available to a judgment-debtor in such a case would be to make an application to set aside the ex parte decree under order 9, rule 13 of the civil procedure code. it has been urged that order 9 is a self-contained provision to cover all sorts of cases where an ex parte decree could be set aside, and it would, therefore, not he permissible to a litigant to reagitate a cause that has already been decided once by a competent court save by resorting to that provision. it is said that article 164 of the indian limitation act prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days from the date of the defendant's knowledge of the decree in cases where summons is not duly served, and, therefore, there would be no injustice caused to a defendant against whom an ex parte decree is passed, if he is not given a right to file a separate suit to set aside an ex parte decree. 5. reference has been made by mr. shall to some decided cases in this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN321
r.r. yadav, j.1. the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned order of additional commissioner commercial taxes, jaipur (respondent no. 1) dated 3.12.1983 annex. 6 to the writ petition and for restoring the order dated 24.7.1980 annex. 2 to the writ petition passed by the deputy commissioner (appeals) (respondent no. 2) on the ground, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the commercial taxes officer, pali (respondent no. 3) dated 13.7.1979 annx. 1 to the writ petition by substituting his own order enhancing the tax liability. according to the averments made in the writ petition, the order of the commercial taxes officer. pali has attained finality subject to the modification of order dated 24.7.1980 annx. 2 to the writ petition passed by the deputy commissioner (appeals) in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him under rule 27 of the rules framed under the rajasthan entertainments and advertisements tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'act no. 24 of 1957').2. the aforesaid order dated 3.12.1983 annx. 6 to the writ petition is also challenged on the ground that respondent no. 3 in his revision application, did not challenge his own order but has challenged the order of deputy commissioner (appeals) dated 24.7.1980 annx. 2 to the writ petition. therefore, in absence of any challenge in revision, respondent no. 1 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under rule .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi date of decision:22. d may, 2014. % + cs(os) 1938/2008 smt. radhesh singh through: ..... plaintiff mr. prabhjit jauhar, adv. versus vineet singh & ors through: ..... defendants mr. jeevesh nagrath & ms. avsi malik, advs. for d-1 to 3. mr. naaren nath survaria, adv. for d-3. ms. anuradha mukherjee and ms. shreya som, advs. for d-4. coram: hon'ble mr. justice rajiv sahai endlaw ia no.13523/2008 (of d-1 to 3 u/o7r-11 cpc) 1. the plaintiff, on 15th september, 2008 has filed this suit, (i) for declaration that the compromise decree dated 31 st may, 1984 in suit no.335/1982 of this court has become unexecutable and unenforceable in law and is of no consequence; (ii) for partition of property no.17, rajdoot marg, chanakyapuri, new delhi, claiming a 50% share therein; and, (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff thereof, pleading: (a) that the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no.4 smt. ravinder kumari and of the predecessor of the defendants no.1 to 3 was the owner of property no.17, rajdoot marg, chanakyapuri, new delhi admeasuring 375 sq. yds. and died intestate leaving the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and the predecessor of the defendants no.1 to 3 as his only legal heirs; (b) that the plaintiff instituted suit no.335/1982 in this court for partition of the aforesaid property and of the other estate left by the father, claiming 1/ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
- 1 - nc:2024. khc:4508 mfa no.4399 of 2023 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru r dated this the1t day of february, 2024 before the hon'ble mr justice h.p.sandesh miscellaneous first appeal no.4399 of2023(isa) between:1. sri. m.r. mohan kumar s/o rangappa @ ranganna aged about32years malekote village tavarekere post, sira taluk tumkuru district-572139.2. sri manjunath r., rangappa @ ranganna aged about31years malekote village tavarekere post, sira taluk tumkuru district-572139 3. sri anand g.k. s/o kanthappa alis kanthraju aged about24years r/at gullahalli village begur post, sulibele hobli hosakote taluk bengaluru rural district-563129 appellants (by sri. sunil s. rao, advocate for sri g.panduranga, advocate) and:1. nil respondent - 2 - nc:2024. khc:4508 mfa no.4399 of 2023 this mfa is filed u/s299of indian succession act against the order dated2004.2023 passed in p and sc no.25/2022 on the file of the c/c vii additional district and sessions judge, tumakuru, rejecting the petition filed under section276of indian succession act. this appeal, coming on for final hearing this day, the court delivered the following: judgment heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record.2. this miscellaneous first appeal is filed assailing the order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the vi additional district and sessions judge at tumakuru in p & s.c.no.25/2022 dismissing the petition filed for issuance of probate.3. the appellants have sought the probate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 r in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru dated this the2d day of february, 2024 before the hon'ble mr. justice h.p. sandesh m.f.a. no.8528/2022 (cpc) between:1. . ranga trilochana bedi @ r.t.bedi s/o baba pyaare lal bedi aged about87years residing at185, 3rd cross nandidurga extension jayamahal bengaluru-560 046. appellant (by sri ajesh kumar s., advocate) and:1. . mr. kabir bedi s/o late b.p.l. bedi aged about74years residing at a5 beach house park gandhi gram road, juhu, mumbai-400 049 2 . westland publications private limited [an amazon company]. having its office at1t floor a block east wing, plot no.40 sp info city, dr. mgr salai perungudi, kandanachavadi chennai-600 096 2 represented by its ceo/wholtime director mr. gautam padmanabhan. respondents (by sri s. sriranga, senior counsel for smt. sumana naganand, advocate for r1; sri dhyan chinnappa, senior counsel for sri chintan chinnappa, advocate for c/r2) this m.f.a. is filed under order43rule1r) of cpc, against the order dated2709.2022 passed on i.a. nos.2 and3in o.s.no.2968/2021 on the file of the24h additional city civil and sessions judge and holding concurrent charge of xxxviii additional city civil and sessions judge, bengaluru city (c.c.h.no.39), rejecting i.a. nos.2 and3filed under order39rule1and2of cpc read with section151of cpc. this m.f.a. having been heard and reserved for judgment on1901.2024 this day, the court pronounced the following: judgment heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff .....
Tag this Judgment!