Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(5)SC72; 2004(6)SCALE75; (2004)12SCC673
Ruma Pal, J.1. Consequent of the creation of the State of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab, the question of apportionment of the river waters made available to the erstwhile State of Punjab between Haryana and Punjab arose. A notification was issued by the Union of India on 24th March, 1976 under Section 78 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, inter alia dividing the river waters between the two States. The Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal Project covering about 214 KMs. was to be constructed through the States of Punjab and Haryana. Out of the 214 KMs, 122 KMs were to run through the territory of Punjab and 92 KMs through Haryana. The cost of completion of the canal was to be met by the Central Government. Haryana's portion of the canal was completed by June 1980. The State of Punjab had not completed its share of the canal although it had been paid the amount necessary for the purpose as also for the recurring expenditure towards maintenance of the canal.2. A suit was filed by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3615; III(2004)BC179; (2004)3CALLT49(SC); [2005]123CompCas4(SC); 2004(3)CTC380; [2004(4)JCR147(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC64; 2004(6)SCALE110; (2004)12SCC376; (2004)2UPLBEC1
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a partnership firm of which the other appellants are its partners. By the impugned order, the Division Bench has allowed the respondent's application for revocation of leave which had been granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 to the appellants to file a suit against the respondent in the Calcutta High Court. Leave was revoked on the ground that no part of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint had arisen within the original jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint was consequently directed to be taken off the file and returned to the appellants for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. The suit had been filed in 1995 by the appellants against the respondent alleging that the appellant had supplied goods pursuant to an agreement between the appellant No.1 and a German company, named Kleinsorge (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). Payment for the goods supplied was to be made by way...
Tag this Judgment!