Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)92BOMLR1; (1990)1GLR209; JT1989(4)SC74; 1989(2)SCALE780; (1989)4SCC612; [1989]Supp1SCR380
N.D. Ojha, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These civil appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing writ petition No. 3313/87 filed by Arjun Khiamal Makhijani who is the appellant in one of these appeals and writ petition No. 3417/87 by Prithdayal Chetandas and others who are the appellants in the other civil appeal. Jamnadas C. Tuliani who is respondent No. 1 in both these appeals is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises comprising two bed rooms flat together with a garage on the ground floor and a store room on Bhulabhai Desai Road in the city of Bombay. A suit was instituted by him for ejectment from the said premises against five defendants on the ground that they were tenants of the said premises and were in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months which they had not paid in spite of a notice of demand having been served on them as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC673; (1989)4SCC603; 1990(1)LC264(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The question raised in this appeal is whether the agent after revocation of his authority is entitled to remain in possession of the premises of the principal and interfere with the business thereof. The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Original Suit C.S. No. 1317 of 1988 has granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant's transport business. But the Division Bench by judgment delivered on March 28, 1989, vacated that temporary injunction. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench.3. The facts are substantially undisputed. The appellant-company under the name as Southern Roadways Ltd. is engaged in the business of transport of goods and parcels to different places in Southern India. It has appointed commission agents at various stations for the purpose of carrying on its business. S. M. Krishnan-respondent was one such agent appointed at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC89; 1989(2)SCALE811; (1989)4SCC603a; [1989]Supp1SCR410
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The question raised in this appeal is whether the agent after revocation of his authority is entitled to remain in possession of the premises of the principal and interfere with the business thereof. The learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Original Suit C.S. No. 1317 of 1988 has granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant's transport business. But the Division Bench by judgment delivered on March 28,1989, vacated that temporary injunction. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench.3. The facts are substantially undisputed. The appellant-company under the name as Southern Roadways Ltd. is engaged in the business of transport of goods and parcels to different places in Southern India. It has appointed commission agents at various stations for the purpose of carrying on its business. S.M. Krishnan-respondent was one such agent appointed at Madras...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(1)LC280(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals on special leave have been filed by the contractor, K.V. George against the judgment and order passed on 10th April, 1987 by the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No. 291 and 304 of 1982 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sub-Court, Trivandrum in O.P. (Arb.) No. 296 of 1981 as also the award of the Arbitrator in A.C. No. 276 of 1980 and directed that the Arbitrator will dispose of the Arbitration case No. 132 of 1980 in the light of the judgment of the Sub-Court in O.P. (Arb.) No. 81 of 1981 in accordance with law considering the claim of the contractor-appellant and the counter-claim of the respondents.3. The appellant who is a contractor entered into a contract with the respondents on April 22, 1978 in connection with the construction of an embankment across Musaliyar Padom between Chaniage 2573.5 M to 2827 M of E.B. Main canal of Kallada Irrigation Project. The work was required to be completed by 30th March, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC53; 1990(1)ARBLR55(SC); JT1989(4)SC166; 1989(2)SCALE822; (1989)4SCC595; [1989]Supp1SCR398
1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals on special leave have been filed by the contractor, K.V. George against the judgment and order passed on 10th April, 1987 by the Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No. 291 and 304 of 1982 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sub-Court, Trivandrum in OP. (Arb.) No. 296 of 1981 as also the award of the Arbitrator in A.C. No. 276 of 1980 and directed that the Arbitrator will dispose of the Arbitration case No. 132 of 1980 in the light of the judgment of the Sub-Court in O.P. (Arb.) No. 81 of 1981 in accordance with law considering the claim of the contractor-appellant and the counter-claim of the respondents.3. The appellant who is a contractor entered into a contract with the respondents on April 22, 1978 in connection with the construction of tan embankment across Musaliyar Padom between Chaniage 2573.5 M to 2827 M of E B. Main canal of Kallada Irrigation Project. The work was required to be completed by 30th March, 1980 i.e. two years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(2)SCALE1423; 1989Supp(2)SCC456a; 1990(1)LC135(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an application (C.M.P. No. 9031/89) made by the respondents in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1980 for revocation of the special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution pursuant to which the above Civil Appeal has been filed.2. The respondents to this application are the appellants in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No. 770/80 and we propose to refer to them as such. The appellants were defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in Suit No. 196 of 1963 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi. The said suit was filed praying for a declaration that certain shops belonged to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 in that suit who are respondents in the aforesaid appeal before us. The appellants had raised a contention in the Suit that the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation and that contention was upheld by the Trial Court. In view of the conclusion of the Trial Court regarding the question of limitation the Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by lim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC47; 1997(91)ELT27(SC); JT1989(4)SC147; (1989)4SCC640; [1989]Supp1SCR353
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 25th March, 1988.3. There was a notification under Section 98(2) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 dated 4th March, 1975 levying octroi, inter alia, on food drinks (including milkfood) brought into the municipal limits of Bangalore for sale, consumption or use. On 8th October, 1976, representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, HMM Limited, protesting against levy of octroi on 'Horlicks' milkfood powder brought into the municipal limits in bulk containers (Large steel drums) for being packed at the packing station in Bangalore in Unit containers (glass bottles) and thereafter exported outside the municipal limits. In respect of the quantity of the goods which were exported outside the municipal limits after being bottled, the petitioners sought refund of the octroi duty as there was no use or consump...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC73; JT1989(4)SC62; 1989Supp(2)SCC125; 1990(1)LC4(SC)
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the dismiss sal of Civil Revision No. 10(H)/72 in a common judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court in Civil Revisions Nos. 9 (H)/72 and 10 (H)/72. By two separate but concurring judgments, Baharul Islam, J., as he then was and Bindra, J., dismissed both the civil revision petitions but with differing observations as to the procedure that should be followed by the Courts in Nagaland in dealing with cases before them. We are not now concerned with those matters.2. Before we proceed to set out the details of the case and the decision rendered by the High Court, it is relevant to mention that the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code do not govern the proceedings before the Civil and Criminal Courts in Nagaland and the proceedings are to be governed by Rule 30 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and police in the Nagaland Hills District. The Rules lay down that the spirit of the Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC540b; JT1989(4)SC62a
NATARAJAN, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the dismissal of Civil Revision No. 10(H)/72 in a common judgment rendered by the Gauhati High Court in Civil Revisions Nos. 9(H)/72 and 10(H)/72. By two separate but concurring judgments, Baharul Islam, J., as he then was, and Bindra, J., dismissed both the civil revision petitions but with differing observations as to the procedure that should be followed by the courts in Nagaland in dealing with cases before them. We are not now concerned with those matters2. Before we proceed to set out the details of the case and the decision rendered by the High Court, it is relevant to mention that the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code do not govern the proceedings before the civil and criminal courts in Nagaland and the proceedings are to be governed by Rule 30 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Nagaland Hills District. The Rules lay down that the spirit of the Civil Procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(2)SCALE791; (1989)4SCC640a
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 24th March, 1988.3. There was a notification under Section 98(2) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 dated 4th March, 1975 levying octroi, inter alia, on food drinks (including milk food) brought into the municipal limits of Bangalore for sale, consumption or use. On 8th October, 1976, representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, HMM Limited, protesting against levy of octroi on 'Horlicks' milk food powder brought into the municipal limits in bulk containers (Large steel drums) for being packed at the packing station in Bangalore in Unit containers (glass bottles) and thereafter exported outside the municipal limits. In respect of the quantity of the goods which were exported outside the municipal limits after being bottled, the petitioners sought refund of the octroi duty as there was no use or consumptio...
Tag this Judgment!