Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC285; (1997)11SCC107
ORDER1. The petitioner is the wife against whom a matrimonial case, HMA No, 489 of 1996, has been filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That case is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, The petitioner seeks transfer of that case from Delhi to a court of competent jurisdiction at Varanasi where the petitioner is staying with a child of the marriage, aged about two and a half years on various grounds detailed in the petition. That the child of the marriage is with the petitioner and cannot be left at Varanasi if the petitioner has to travel to attend to the matrimonial case, is not in dispute.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it appears appropriate to us to allow this application. HMA No. 489 of 1996 titled Abhirup Banerjee v. Jaishree Banerjee is withdrawn from the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi and is transferred to the Court of the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Vara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC772; (1997)2CALLT56(SC); 1997(1)Crimes160(SC); JT1997(1)SC540; (1998)IMLJ5(SC); RLW1997(2)SC271; 1997(1)SCALE321; (1997)2SCC611; [1997]1SCR11
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, made on 29-5-1996 in CRP No. 2246/93.3. The admitted facts are that the appellants and the respondent entered into an agreement on March 16, 1989 for sale of plot of land bearing No. 114/8 situated at Peenya Industrial Suburb II Stage, Peenya Village, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. The date for the performance of the contract was fixed as May 28, 1989. The appellants issued notice on October 2, 1989 calling upon the respondent to comply with the conditions mentioned under the agreement, namely, to obtain Income-tax clearance certificate and from the Urban Ceiling Authority permitting the respondent to alienate the property to the appellants. The respondent had issued a notice on November 6, 1989 repudiating the contract though the execution thereof was admitted. The appellants then filed a suit for mandatory injunction on April 21, 1992 d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC806; (1997)2CALLT77(SC); JT1997(1)SC535; RLW1997(2)SC269; 1997(1)SCALE325; (1997)2SCC548; [1997]1SCR18
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated September 18, 1995 made in R.S.A. No. 679/94 by the Karnataka High Court. The appellant's father filed the suit for declaration and rendition of account from the respondent. According to him, he had purchased the business of the restaurant on July 2, 1951 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- out of his own funds under Ex. P-7. Since he was employed as a teacher and the respondent was loitering jobless, he put the respondent in charge of the business. However, due to mismanagement of the business on the part of respondent, the appellant's father filed the suit with the above relief. The trial Court decreed the suit on October 28, 1986, but on appeal the Addl. District Judge by his judgment and decree dated February 28, 1994 reversed the decree and dismissed the suit and in the second appeal it was confirmed. Thus the appeal by special leave.4. In the earlier procee...
Tag this Judgment!