Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2594; 98(2002)DLT443(SC); JT2002(5)SC46; 2002(5)SCALE93; (2002)6SCC60; [2002]SUPP1SCR59
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals filed by the landlord are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in SAO No. 3/2000 and CMP No. 135/2000 setting aside the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 22.11.1999 in RCA No. 127/97 and confirming the judgment dated 27.1.1997 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable. The premises in question is described as plot No. 8, Block No. 48, Shopping center, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. The appellant was allotted the plot of land by the Union of India on which the premises in question stand. A registered agreement for lease was executed between the President of India through the Land and Development Officer (for short 'the L&DO;') and the appellant on 24th December, 1965 setting out the terms and conditions which were binding on both the parties. In Clause 18 of the agreement it was provided that till the formal lease deed was exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC392
R.C. Lahoti and; Brijesh Kumar, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Second appeal has been dismissed by the High Court in limine as it formed an opinion that no substantial question of law worth being heard under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code arose for consideration. However, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record we are persuaded to form a prima facie opinion that the following questions of law do arise as substantial questions of law on which the appeal ought to have been heard by the High Court:(a) Would litigation for partition between two branches of a family decided on the peculiar facts of the case, in which both the petitioners as well as the original defendant represented a common branch, act as res judicata in a suit for partition between the petitioners and the original defendant?(b) Does the abolition of inam and regrant of suit land to the original defendant not entitle the petitioners to claim partition in the suit land?(c)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC75
V.N. Khare and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The short question which arises in these appeals is as to whether the High Court without framing a substantial question of law can decide the second appeal on merits. This Court, on a number of occasions, has held that the High Court under Section 100 CPC acquires jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law. In these cases, we find that the High Court has not framed any substantial question of law. On this short ground, these appeals deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside and the cases are remitted to the High Court to decide the cases in terms of Section 100 CPC.3. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2002)ACC501; AIR2002SC2513; JT2002(5)SC125; 2002(5)SCALE145; (2002)6SCC269; [2002]SUPP1SCR87
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. The core question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the Transport Commissioner of the State of Haryana has any financial interest within the meaning of Section 68(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Government Undertaking known as the Haryana Roadways so as to render him ineligible for appointment as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. The appellant had challenged by a writ petition the Notification dated March 27, 1993 whereunder the Transport Commissioner was appointed as Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. Since the aforesaid Notification was superseded by a subsequent Notification of December 31, 1998 appointing the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority as Chairman and the Traffic Manager of the Haryana Roadways as a member of the authority, apart from a representative of the District Administration, the appellant amended the writ petition and challenged the Notification of December 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2686; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)937; 2002(6)BomCR686; JT2002(5)SC196; (2002)6SCC153; [2002]SUPP1SCR106; 2002(3)SCT677(SC); 2002(2)LC1015(SC); (2002)3UPLBEC2064
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. 1. Special Leave granted. 2. The appellant the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education is a Board constituted under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965. In this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High court of Judicature at Bombay, (Aurangabad Bench) dated September 3, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 313 of 2001, whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition preferred by respondent No. l herein and directed the Board to declare the petitioner as having passed the examination. The High Court took the view that under Sub-clause 2(d) under Note 1 of Clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52. the respondent No. 1 was entitled to the grant of 20 grace marks with the result that the marks obtained by him in the subject Mathematics would be 39, he having secured 19 marks in the examination Consequently, the respondent No. 1 having obtained 39 marks in the subject Mathematics with the addition of grace marks, would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2507; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)927; 2002(6)BomCR709; JT2002(6)SC452; 2002(5)SCALE76; (2002)6SCC66; [2002]SUPP1SCR68; 2002(2)LC986(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgement rendered by Bombay High Court whereby Writ Application filed by the appellant has been dismissed, upholding order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, dismissing appeal preferred by the appellant against his order of eviction from the premises in question passed by the Co-operative Court, purporting to act under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act'].2. The short facts are that Sind Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Society Limited, respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'] was a tenant co-partnership housing society and one B.D. Punjabi respondent No. 2, was its member as tenant co-partner in relation to flat No. 5 allotted to him in Ashiana Building of the Society. Respondent No. 2 who was put in possession of the aforesaid flat, put the appellant in occupation of the same in December, 1970, without previo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2002)ACC575; 2002ACJ1559; AIR2002SC2483; 2002(50)BLJR1854; [2002]111CompCas747(SC); (2002)2GLR897; JT2002(5)SC118; 2002(5)SCALE99; (2002)6SCC52; [2002]SUPP1SCR78; 2002(2
B.N. Agarwal, J.1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned judgments rendered by Karnataka High Court in two separate appeals jointly preferred by the insurer as well as the insured, the same have been partly allowed and compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been reduced viz. in one case from Rs. 3,13,000/- to Rs. 1,71,000/- and in another from Rs. 3,49,000/- to Rs. 1,83,000/-. While disposing of the appeals, the High Court directed that out of the compensation awarded, 25% shall be payable to fathers of the respective victims and 75% to their mothers together with proportionate interest. It was further directed that out of the amount of compensation payable to the mothers of the victims, Rs. 50,000/-shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a period of five years with liberty to draw the interest.3. The short facts are that one Irfan Ahammed-respondent No. 1 owned a lorry bearing No. CNG-6409 and Vazeer Ahamed and Rafeeq Ahamed, sons of the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2481; 2002(4)ALD103(SC); 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)925; 2002(4)AWC2443(SC); 2002(3)BLJR1854; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN142; (2002)4CompLJ364(SC); [2002(3)JCR53(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC136
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave is granted.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 1748 of 2000 dated August 20,2001.4. We have been taken through the judgment under challenge. It is evident that the learned Judge has disposed of the second appeal unmindful of the amended provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. inasmuch as no substantial question of law has been framed which is obligatory thereunder. Section 100 C.P.C. reads as under :'100. Second Appeal - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.(3) In an appeal under this section, the memo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2500; 2002(4)ALD136(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1674; (SCSuppl)2002(4)CHN170; [2002(3)JCR61(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC169; (2002)3MLJ90(SC); (2002)6SCC359; [2002]SUPP1SCR45
Leave granted.One Sailen Ghosh was the original owner of the suit property. He died on 23rd June, 1942 leaving behind his widow Smt. Mira Ghosh, son Partha Sarathi Ghosh-who is respondent herein and two daughters namely Smt. Srilekha Ghosh (Roy) and Smt. Sulekha Ghosh (Mitra) who are the appellants herein. According to the law of succession prevailing then the respondent and his mother became joint owners of the suit property subject to the provision in Section 3(3) of the Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act, 1937. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the widow's interest became absolute and thus the respondent and his mother became co- sharers of the suit property each having a moity share. The widow by a registered deed of gift dated 23.8.1968 gifted her share to the appellants. After acquiring share in the suit property through their mother the appellants filed a suit Title Suit No.29/70 against the respondent seeking a decree of partition. The suit was decreed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2598; 2002(2)ARBLR619(SC); 2002(3)AWC2486(SC); [2002(3)JCR57(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC335; RLW2002(4)SC604; 2002(5)SCALE132; (2002)5SCC760
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave is granted.2. These appeals, filed by the defendant M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., are directed against the order of a single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowing the appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') by the plaintiff Shri Sriman Narayan, who is respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the appeals challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the petition filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. seeking interim injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of the petrol pump, bearing the name and style Super Service Station at Premises No. 5-8-699/8, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad and also to restrain them from interfering with running the day to day business of the said petrol pump. The Trial Court took note of the factual position that the plaintiff instituted the suit on 28th September, 2000 whereas notice of termination of dealership agr...
Tag this Judgment!