Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, 'the National Commission'] summarily dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.3. Undisputedly, the National Commission dismissed the complaint without even issuing notice to the respondent. Upon a perusal of a complaint, it cannot be said that the complaint was barred by the limitation, per se. Therefore, the National Commission was not justified in summarily dismissing the complaint on that ground and that too without taking note of the fact that the appellant had also filed a petition for condonation of delay. This being the position, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission. Now, the National Commission shall first issue notice to the respondent in the matter of limita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned order, Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the State Commission'] dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant in which he claimed compensation of Rupees ten lakhs by alleging that on account of negligence of the respondent wrong blood group came to be mentioned in the report of the laboratory and, as a result of that, his wife had to suffer two abortions. When the matter was taken in appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the National Commission'], held that there was total failure on the part of the respondent in exercising adequate care in analyzing the blood which made his wife to go for abortions. Accordingly the National Commission awarded compensation of Rupees twenty five thousand together with interest @ 9% per annum. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant has filed this appeal.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are convinced that in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In this case the Rent Controller has refused to grant leave to defend, hence this Civil Appeal is filed by the tenant.3. We have gone through the records. We are satisfied that the leave has been rightly rejected. However, from such rejection it does not follow that the landlord has not to prove the ingredients of Section 13B of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. We may also add that the appellant herein would have right to cross-examine the landlord in pending proceedings.4. Subject to above, we dismiss the appeal and direct the Rent Controller to decide the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months from today.5. There shall be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The issue is squarely covered by our two judgments in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in : 2007 (7) SCC 269 and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Limited reported in 2008 (14) SCALE 380, in favour of the Department.3. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the Department stands allowed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The issue is squarely covered by our two judgments in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in : 2007 (7) SCC 269 and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Limited reported in 2008 (14) SCALE 380, in favour of the Department.4. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal filed by the Department stands allowed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. In terms of our Order dated 18th January, 2008, and in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Anr. reported in : 2004 (6) SCC 281, the matters stand remitted to the High Court to decide on the question of computation of royalty which has not been considered in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.4. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. By the impugned order, the High Court has, during the pendency of the Writ Petition filed by the landlord-respondent No. 1 against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Saharanpur who set aside the eviction order passed by prescribed authority, directed the tenant-petitioner to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per month in respect of the tenanted premises. The effect of this order is that the petitioner, who was paying Rs. 150/- per month will have to pay Rs. 2100/- per month.4. At the hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that the impugned order may be set aside and the High Court may be directed to dispose of the writ petition. We are also of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court should not have ordered payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 2100/- per month in place of Rs. 150/- per month.5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed in default on the ground of non-appearance of his advocate. The petition for restoration was dismissed by the Trial Court on 14.10.2008. That order was confirmed by the Additional District Judge who dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the High Court dismissed the revision filed against appellate order. Hence, this appeal by special leave.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are convinced that in the facts and circumstances of the present case non- appearance of the advocate of the petitioner cannot be treated as intentional and the Trial Court should have restored the suit to its original file. The learned Additional District Judge and the High Court confirmed the order of dismissal of restoration application without properly appreciating the fact that the petitioner was not to be blamed for non-appearance of his advocate. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. This bail application is allowed subject to the following conditions:1. The appellant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.2. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution/evidence in any manner nor shall he make any threat or inducement to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to disuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.3. The appellant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Trial Court.4. The appellant shall surrender the passport, if possessed by him, before the Trial Court. If he does not possess the passport, he shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court to that effect.4. The appeal is accordingly allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1927; 2009(2)AWC1820(SC); 2009(2)SCALE117; (2009)2SCC667:2009AIRSCW1537:2009(3)KCCRSN78.
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and after considering the impugned order, which is cryptic in nature, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant as we find from the averments made in the application for condonation of delay that such averments do constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.3. It is true that an observation has been made by the High Court in the impugned order that the subject matter in the appeal also did not suffer from any infirmity but it is well settled that while deciding an application of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the High Court could not go into the merits of the same. Even assuming that the High Court had the power to go into that question, then also, in our view, the impugned order does not disclose any reason why the subjec...
Tag this Judgment!