Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2755; JT1996(7)SC226; 1996(5)SCALE805; (1996)10SCC53; [1996]Supp4SCR173
ORDER1. This petition is against an order dismissing the application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by the petitioners to come on record in place of their father. The suit was laid for specific performance wherein the father during his life time is alleged to have entered into compromise and requested to delete his name from the arraignment of the parties as respondent No. 1. The deletion of the first respondent came to be made after his demise. Pending suit before compromise memo was recorded, the petitioners sought to come on record under Order 1, Rule 10 being that they were necessary and proper parties. The trial Court recorded the finding that deletion had taken place and observed as under :At present I am not giving any finding with respect of Ext-6 and compromise petition in the light of an objections raised by petitioners in their other two petitions. Simply I have stated the facts which are available on record. If these petitioners are made parties in the suit as prayed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)82; 1996(2)CTC462; JT1996(7)SC358; 1996(5)SCALE706; (1996)10SCC49; [1996]Supp4SCR177
ORDER1. The petitioner in the first instance invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court and obtained an injunction against the respondent from proceeding with the construction said to be in violation of his easement right of air and light. The respondent filed a writ petition against the Municipal Corporation impleading the petitioner, contending that his construction was in accordance with the permission accorded by them and, therefore, he may be permitted to proceed with the construction. Thereafter, an application came to be filed for appointment of a Commissioner. The learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Principal District Munsiff, Vijayawada to appoint a Commissioner and after notice to the parties, the Commissioner would inspect and submit a report to the High Court whether the construction was in accordance with the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation or in violation thereof.2. It is not in dispute that an Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)227; AIR1997SC463; JT1996(9)SC18; 1996(5)SCALE675; (1996)10SCC51
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for specific performance under an agreement for sale of land by Smt. Janabai to the appellant.3. Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the sons of Smt. Janabai while respondent No. 2 is her daughter-in-law. On February 20, 1975 Smt. Janabai entered into an agreement for the sale of suit lands to the appellant under which the appellant agreed to purchase the lands for Rs. 7000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,000/ - was paid by the appellant to Smt. Janabai as earnest money. As per the agreement the balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The case of the appellant is that on May 5, 1976 he gave notice to Smt. Janabai to execute the sale deed. The appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 1000/- to Smt. Janabai on July 30, 1976 and on August 20, 1977 a further amount of Rs. 800/- was paid to Maruti, the son of Smt. Janabai and husband of respondent No. 2. Thus the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)300; AIR1997SC1541; JT1996(7)SC212; 1996(5)SCALE871; (1996)6SCC199; [1996]Supp4SCR169
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The only question raised in this case is: whether the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order to file the Election Petition within three weeks from the date of the disposal of the writ petition and after filing of the petition to dispose of the same, without going into the question of limitation is valid in law? The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the impugned order dated June 26, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 1995 and batch observed as follows:We are not inclined to go into the questions raised in this Writ Petition. The appropriate form is the Election Tribunal. It is open to the petitioners to file an election petition within three weeks from today and if such an petition is filed, the same shall be entertained by the Election Tribunal without going into question of limitation and disposed it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of filing of the Petition. No costs.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)707; AIR1997SC1598; JT1996(9)SC11; 1996(5)SCALE804; (1996)5SCC457; [1996]Supp4SCR175; 1996(2)LC549(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The petitioner, Pirthi @ Sansi admittedly had entered into an agreement on May 6, 1988 to sell 16 kanal 16 marlas of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 50,000 per killa and received a sum of Rs. 24,000 as earnest money. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in April 1993 against the petitioner. It was his plea and accepted by all courts that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was willing and ready to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 81,000. 2. Accepting the case of the respondent, the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge by his judgment dated November 15, 1994 reversed the decree holding that Ramesh and others had come into possession of the land. They were in possession of the land and the agreement came to the executed in their favour on December 5, 1994 after the judgment of the appellate Court. There, the decree for specific performance was not proper and inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC226
G.N. Ray and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have challenged the order dated 14-7-1995 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 725 of 1991. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision application in which the appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Court of Bankura to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants contended that the alleged cruelty having taken place in the city of Calcutta, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Mr Mukherjee appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the complaint made by the respondent which is Annexure V. (collectively) in the special leave petition. There is some force in the contention of Mr Mukherjee that although according to the complainant wife, she was given false promises and ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2665; [1996(74)FLR2759]; JT1996(9)SC6; (1997)ILLJ1185SC; 1996(5)SCALE814; (1996)10SCC516; [1996]Supp4SCR156; 1996(3)SLJ11(SC); 1997(1)LC92(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides,3. The respondent, a Chief Engineer had entered the Government service on August 20, 1962 as junior Engineer. In the M.P. Civil List published on July 1, 1964 his name was at Serial No. 153 and his date of birth was mentioned therein as November 30, 1936. Equally, for the next year 1965 he was at Serial No. 162 and the date of birth continued to be the same, i.e. , as entered in the record. It would appear that subsequently, the service register was not available; as a consequence, he was called upon to produce the service book which he did not produce; instead, he supplied a photostat copy of his date of birth certificate showing June 28, 1938 as his date of birth. The report was called for from the Secondary School in which the respondent admittedly had studied which is placed at page 12 of Volume 11 of the paper book. The report also shows that the school authorities had certified that his date of birth as November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)101; 1996(3)Crimes212(SC); (1996)5SCC437; [1996]Supp4SCR147
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have before us the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the Arbitrator had not misconducted himself or the proceedings. We also have before us the appellate judgment of the Letters Patent Bench under appeal saying to the contrary. The misconduct blown up is that the Arbitrator had conducted sitting/sittings in the premises owned by the appellants and had during that while accepted lea and refreshment from them and hence to have become guilty of misconduct. It is admitted that he was not alone in that regard as both the contesting par lies before him had equally shared the use of the premises for the purpose as well as refreshments as part of courtesies. No objection of any sort, at any point of lime, was taken by any one either with regard to the place of conduct of the proceedings or to those courtesies extended in the form of refreshment. We fail to appreciate as to how could the arbitrator be presumed to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)295; AIR1997SC8; JT1996(7)SC14; 1996(5)SCALE483; (1996)9SCC621; [1996]Supp4SCR144
ORDERSLP No. 14830/94 and SLP No. 17325/94:1. A Notification issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereafter called the 1949 Act) dated April 23, 1992 published on April 28,1992, was put to challenge separately by the respective two special leave petitioners before the High Court of Bombay whereby the industrial estate/area where they had put up their industries was brought within the territorial limits of the Solapur Municipal Corporation, Solapur. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions in limine on identical grounds. One such ground was that admittedly no flaw could be found in the observance of the statutory provisions leading to the enlargement of the limits of the municipal corporation. This part of the order sustains by itself unquestionably. The second ground of challenge failed inasmuch as the writ petitions could not point out any conflict between the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)629; AIR1996SC3445; JT1996(7)SC79; 1996(5)SCALE452; (1996)9SCC749; [1996]Supp4SCR65; 1996(2)LC603(SC)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is a writ petition seeking the quashing of a notification dated 12th March, 1992, issued by the State of Rajasthan, amending the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972. The writ petition also seeks directions to the State of Rajasthan to recognise allottees of land allotted to them as khatedars immediately on the expiry of ten years from the date of original allotment; to withdraw the cancellation of allotments where allotments had already been cancelled; and to allot land to oustees who had not yet been allotted any.2. Construction work on the Pong Dam on the river Beas commenced in the year 1960. The land whose acquisition was requisite for the purpose then fell within the State of Punjab. After the reorganisation of State boundaries on 1st November, 1966, that land fell within the territorial limits of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Altho...
Tag this Judgment!