Sikkim Court February 2014 Judgments
Passang Lepcha and Others Vs. Saney Tshering Lepcha, Son of Palo Targa ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Feb-28-2014
Wangdi, J. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 01-04-2013 of the Learned District Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi in Title Appeal Case No. 1 of 2010 whereby Appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09-07- 2008 of Learned Civil Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Title Suit No.7 of 2007 was dismissed. 2. The Appeal was admitted by this Court having found that ground C in the Memo of Appeal was a substantial question of law that required consideration. We may reproduce ground C hereunder:- œC. Whether the Court below dismissed the Appeal on the ground that only copy of the judgment was filed and no copy of the decree has been filed along with the memorandum of Appeal after the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was amended by Act 46 of 1999, Section 31(i) with effect from 1.7.2002 is legal and has binding force? 3. It may be relevant to note that when the matter came up for hearing on 13-11-2013 it was noticed that the First App...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Jain, CJ (Oral). 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. 2. The defendants no. 1, 3 and 4/appellants have preferred an appeal against order dated 17.02.2014, passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok, East Sikkim, on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC, filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1, whereby application for injunction filed by plaintiff has been allowed and defendants No. 1 and 2 have been restrained from making any further changes/ constructions in Schedule œB? property until further orders. The appellants have also filed the present stay application along with appeal with a prayer to stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the trial Court during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, injunction and consequential reliefs in the trial Court along with an application for temporary...
Tag this Judgment!Public and Pipon, Lachen, North Sikkim Vs. Union of India, Government ...
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Jain, CJ. (Oral). 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard and being disposed off finally. 2. This letter petition, which was treated as Public Interest Litigation, has been filed with a prayer that necessary directions be issued to respondents for nonconstruction of tunnels at Rugrab, North Sikkim, as mentioned in the petition, in future. The relevant paragraphs of writ petition are as under: - œThat this is to inform Your Honour that the Indian Army had constructed a Tunnel at Rugrab, North Sikkim for their own purpose without our consent. That unfortunately, due to the said tunnel, several natural disasters had already occurred and 3 washed away private landed properties and lives of the concern public of the said locality. This is also to inform Your Honour that the said land is very religious and the publics of the said locality conducts puja and religious ceremonies at the said location. In the view of above, we are earnestly seeki...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›