Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ4107; JT2009(12)SC490; 2010(I)OLR(SC)341; (2009)9SCC414
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The present petition is filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of multiple cases by way of complaints/FIRs for and against the Petitioner Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. to the Delhi High Court or any other High Court or courts subordinate to such High Court from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and/or Courts subordinate thereto.2. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company' for the sake of brevity) is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures Ayurvedic medicines. For the purpose of distribution of its products, it engages Carrying and Forwarding Agents to receive goods from it, store and sell them to the stockists.3. The company appointed M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises, Ludhiana (Respondent No. 5 herein) (for short, 'the firm') of which Praveen Bhatia, Ramkishan Bhatia, Ashwani Bhatia and Promila Bhatia are partners.The agreement between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2911(SC); JT2009(10)SC538; 2009(11)SCALE12
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a Civil Court can pass a decree on the ground that the defendant is a trespasser in a simple suit for eviction is the question involved in this appeal.It arises out of a judgment and order dated 17th August, 2006 passed by a learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court in C.O.A. No. 253 of 2006 in RVW No. 2671 of 1996.3. The suit premises is a shop situate in a small town commonly known as Raghunathpur in the district of Purulia. Appellant herein is said to have entered into possession of the suit premises in the year 1970. Originally, he claimed to have come into possession in the said premises pursuant to or in furtherance of an agreement for sale entered into on or about 18th March, 1970 by and between him and S.K. Abdul Wahid Molla, the father of Safiqur Rahaman.The respondents purchased the suit premises from Safiqur Rahaman on 21st July, 1980 by three registered deeds of sale.4. Indisputably, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Tit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC193; JT2009(12)SC499; 2010(2)MhLJ155(SC); 2009(11)SCALE421; (2009)9SCC396
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer Pichhore.In the said capacity, he was a Specified Officer for determination of election disputes in terms of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short, `the Rules') framed in terms of Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short, `the Act').3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein contested an election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khadoya, Block; Tehsil Pichhore. The second respondent was declared elected. Questioning the legality whereof, the first respondent filed an application for setting aside his election in the Court of Specified Officer, Pichhore. Upon hearing the parties, the Specified Officer directed recounting of all the votes polled in the said election. Relying on or on the basis of such re-counting, the election petition was dismissed.4. Questioning the legality and/or va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)ALT47(SC); 2010(1)AWC110(SC); JT2009(15)SC348; 2010(1)MhLJ877(SC); 2009(11)SCALE31; (2009)8SCC231
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff is appellant before us. He filed a suit praying inter alia for the following reliefs:to grant a judgment and decree of a permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants either by themselves or through anyone on their behalf from interfering in the plaintiffs right, title and interest over and in the suit scheduled property including creating documents alienating the property to others and award cost and grant such other relief(s) as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances in the interest of justice and equity. 3. However, an application for leave to amend the plaint was filed which having been allowed; the prayers made in the amended plaint read as under:(a) a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and not to interfere in the plaintiff's lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2010(1)AWC356(SC); (2009)9SCC522009AIRSCW4963:2009(5)LHSC3134
Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A No. 1168 of 2007, decided on 1.11.2007, arising from the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 39 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu on 20.11.2006, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu in O.S. No. 666 of 2001 decided on 27.7.2004 has been confirmed, is before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.3. Certain facts not in dispute are as under:The appellant is real sister of respondents, being son and daughters of late Sh. A.V. Venkataraman, who died in the year 1961 intestate. His wife Rathna, mother of the parties also died on 15.3.1996 intestate.4. It has also not been disputed before us that family partition had taken place between the father of the present parties and his respective brothers on 27.4.1954, which was duly registered before the Su...
Tag this Judgment!