Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC759(SC); 2009(14)SCALE711; (2010)2SCC254
Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. Defendants-appellants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree pronounced by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in respondents' S.A. No. 541/2002 decided on 20.2.2006, are before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.3. Respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed Original Suit No. 5731 of 1994, against the present appellants/ defendants, for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering in any manner into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property to an extent of 1,200 sq. yards forming part of House No. 6-3-584/31/B covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96 of Ward No. 3 out of 38,382 sq. yards belonging to M/s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society, situated at Khairtabad, Hyderabad.4. According to the plaint averments, respondents/plaintiffs contended that schedule property is part of 50,000 sq. yards covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96. It originally b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(14)SCALE672; 2010(1)LC239(SC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal arising out of a Judgment and order dated 30th of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM. No. 65 of 2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside an ex-parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'the Code') was thereby affirmed by the High Court in appeal.3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows in a nutshell:The landlord/appellant filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Rent Act') before the Rent Controller, Delhi for eviction of the Tenant/Respondent from No. 1-C/46, Ramesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010ACJ455; 2010(2)ALT1(SC); 2010(1)AWC636(SC); 2010(1)SCALE8; (2010)2SCC607
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. We propose to address four problems frequently faced in motor accident claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short).Problem (i)2. The first problem relates to a section of motor accident victims who are doubly unfortunate - first in getting involved in an accident, and second, in not getting any compensation. Let us elaborate. There are two categories of victims in motor accidents - those who will be able to get compensation and those who will not be able to get compensation. Victims of motor accidents involving insured vehicles, who are assured of getting compensation from the insurer, fall in the first category. Victims of motor accidents involving the following categories of vehicles, who do not receive any compensation fall under the second category:(i) Hit and run vehicles which remain unidentified.(ii) Vehicles which do not have any insurance cover.(iii) Vehicles with third party insurance, carrying persons who are not covered by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR656; JT2009(15)SC269; (2010)ILLJ561SC; 2009(14)SCALE623; (2010)2SCC273; 2009(10)LC5041(SC)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of SLP (Civil) No. 1982 of 2007, SLP (Civil) No. 3624 of 2007, SLP (Civil).... CC No. 4065 of 2007, SLP (Civil).... CC No. 4046 of 2007, SLP (Civil) Nos. 13462-13463 13462-13463 of 2007, SLP (Civil) No. 20206 of 2007, and SLP (Civil) No. 9600 of 2008.2. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 1982 of 2007, SLP (Civil) No. 3624 of 2007, SLP (Civil) Nos. 13462-13463 13462-13463 of 2007, SLP (Civil) No. 20206 of 2007, and SLP (Civil) No. 9600 of 20083. Two concurrent judgments of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, one written by Hon'ble J.N. Patel and Hon'ble Roshan Dalvi, JJ. and a separate but concurrent judgment authored by Hon'ble Deshmukh, J. have fallen for consideration. The reference to Full Bench was occasioned on account of the two Learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, principally not agreeing with another Division Bench Judgment reported in the case of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 II CLR 279 in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC231; 2009(14)SCALE602; (2010)2SCC252
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the judgment dated October 16, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 42 of 2001, by which order dated November 5, 1999 pronounced by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 13710 of 1999 setting aside order dated November 20, 1975 terminating the services of the respondent and allowing the petition filed by the respondent, is confirmed.2. The brief facts of the case are as under : The respondent was appointed as a Constable in PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary), U.P. on June 10, 1970. He was convicted in a criminal case. Therefore, his services were terminated by the appellant vide order dated November 25, 1975. Ultimately, he was acquitted in appeal and his acquittal was confirmed by this Court. On acquittal, the appellant should have reinstated the respondent in service but no action was taken by the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC330; 2010(1)ALT35(SC); JT2009(15)SC371; 2009(14)SCALE701; (2010)2SCC264
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the tenant/appellant from the judgment and final order dated 3rd of March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision Case No. 3943 of 2005 whereby the High Court had dismissed the civil revision case and affirmed the order of the appellate authority as well as of the Rent Controller thereby directing eviction of the tenant/appellant from a shop constructed on the ground floor at Plot No. 12, bearing Municipal No. 179(a), Ward No. 3, New Anaj Mandi, Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises').3. The case made out by the original landlord Mr. Om Prakash (since deceased) in his eviction petition can be narrated as follows:The tenanted premises was let out to the tenant/appellant in the year 1982 in which the appellant was carrying on the business of Commission Agent. The case of bonafide requirement as pleaded by the original landlord was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)ALT49(SC); 2010(1)AWC757(SC); JT2009(15)SC369; 2009(14)SCALE662
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the judgment dated October 26, 2007, rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2007, by which the order dated July 23, 2007, passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 35-A of 2006 rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit, is confirmed.3. The relevant facts, which emerge from the record of the case are as under:The respondent No. 1 herein is the original plaintiff. He has filed suit to declare that Sale Deed dated July 12, 2004 executed by the appellant and original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of original defendant No. 4 is invalid and illegal. He has also prayed the court to injunct the appellant and original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from alienating the ancestral suit property. In the plaint it is stated that the property in dispute belonge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC227; 2009(14)SCALE604; (2010)2SCC190
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated May 25, 2007, rendered by the learned single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 5819 of 2006, by which the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 271 of 2000, decided on September 7, 2006 that the appellants are not guilty under Section 308 IPC but are guilty under Section 324/149 IPC and are entitled to be released on probation of good conduct, is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge with a direction to pass fresh order of conviction of the appellants in the light of observations made in the judgment and impose sentence on them in accordance with law.3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:The respondent No. 1, i.e., Kant Pandey, resides at village Tikara, District Jaunpur. On May 16, 1999, the appellants formed an unlawful assembly, common ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC752(SC); JT2009(15)SC363; 2009(14)SCALE682; (2010)2SCC107
J.M. Panchal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated March 29, 2007 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Civil Revision No. 122 of 2005, by which order dated May 5, 2005, passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No. 3 of 2004 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confirmed and order dated December 16, 2003 in MJC No. 35 of 2001 (new number 29 of 2003) dismissing the said case for default as well as order dated August 23, 2001 dismissing MJC No. 25 of 1998 for default are set aside and Civil Suit No. 3A of 1996, which was dismissed as withdrawn on February 28, 1997, is restored.3. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:Late Mr. Shankar Lal, who was father of the respondent No. 1, filed Civil Suit No. 11 of 1955 for partition of the joint properties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC232; 2009(14)SCALE593; 2009AIRSCW7702
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated March 8, 2002 whereby writ petition preferred by the present respondent was allowed and it was directed that his seniority to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) should be counted from November 24, 1977 in place of June 29, 1987.2. D. P. Singh-respondent-joined U. P. Police Service on February 16, 1964 as Sub-Inspector. On May 11, 1966, he was sent on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as Sub-Inspector. While he was on deputation, he was appointed to the post of Inspector on December 31, 1970 against deputation quota as per the then existing Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963 (for short, `Rules, 1963'). He continued to be on deputation with CBI and vide Order dated November 24, 1977, he was appointed to the post of Dy. S.P. on ad-hoc basis. He appears to have exercised his option for absorption to the ...
Tag this Judgment!