Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4854 OF2009M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders . Appellant versus Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut . Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, the appellant before us, is a proprietorship concern. Mr. B.K. Garg is its sole proprietor. On 28.4.1995, M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders purchased one, six years National Savings Certificate (hereinafter referred to as, NSC) bearing number 6NS/06DD38774, by investing a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The above NSC was to mature on 28.4.2001. The maturity amount payable on 28.4.2001 was Rs.10,075/-.2. Since M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders was not paid the amount due on maturity, B.K. Garg made repeated visits to the office from where the NSC was purchased. He was informed, that an NSC could only be issued in the name of an individual, and that, the NSC taken in the name of M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, was not valid. He was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9393 OF2014(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.33883 OF2013 |BASAPPA S/O SANGANABASAPPA BAHVIKATTI | | | |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |T RAMESH S/O TANGAVELU & ANR. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | ORDER Leave granted. Unwrapping the events, which have led to the filing of the instant appeal, depict the following scenario: On 23.09.2007, the appellant after completion of his Goundi (working at building construction sites) work, was returning from Navanagar, Karnataka on his Motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA29J 731. He was driving slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. At that time a bus bearing Reg. No.KA296967 came from opposite direction in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life, dashed into the Motorcycle of the appellant. This happened near the Simikeri Bypass Cross on Gaddanakeri Hubli Road at about 20:30 hours. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9486 OF2014(arising out of SLP (C) No.26760 of 2013) |STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |RAMANAND PANDEY |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted. Matter heard finally as counsel on either side, who were ready to argue the matter, made a specific request in this behalf. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated July 10, 2012 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby writ appeal filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition, which was preferred by the respondent herein, has been affirmed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition of the respondent in which challenge to the order dated November 25, 2006, whereby the respondent was reverted from the post of Agriculture Development Officer (for short, 'ADO'),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.603 OF2009Rasheeda Khatoon (D) Through LRs. ...Appellants Versus Ashiq Ali s/o of Lt. Abu Mohd (D) Through LRs. ..Respondents WITH Civil Appeal No.564 of 2009 JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Rasheeda Khatoon, the predecessor-in-interest of present appellants, instituted regular suit No.31 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, seeking recovery of possession from the original defendants. The case of original plaintiff before the trial Court was that one Abdul Haq was the owner of the house No.2868 situated in Mohalla Hayat Ganj in Tanda, District Faizabad. The only son of Abdul Haq had shifted to Pakistan at the time of Partition and there was no one to look after him. The father of Rasheeda Khatoon, Hazi Madari, was a close friend of Abdul Haq, and being a neighbour, she was looking after him for last 20 years till 24.01.1972 when he breathed his last at the ripe age of ninety. Regard being had to various aspect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9378 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.37274/2012) SHANTI DEVI ...Appellant Versus RAJESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. ..Respondents ORDER R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. In this appeal, short question falling for consideration is whether the appellant be granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords.3. Appellant is a tenant in respect of shop premises situated on the ground floor of a property No.6157, Partap Street, Behind Kothi Bhagwan Dass, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -110031 since 1988. The appellant has been engaged in carrying on her business (Disco Hair Dresser) in the said premises. The respondents-landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) against the appellant, interalia, on the ground of bonafide requirement to open office- cum-display counter on the main road side to expand their business of cosmetic unit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8072-8073 OF2009GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... APPELLANT VERSUS ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the National Commission) in Revision Petition Nos.3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008.2. The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible. Apart from the said main question, the appellant has also called in question the refund ordered and other relief granted in favour of the respondent-complainant.3. In the complaint, filed before the District Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) (for short the District Forum), the prayer of the respondent-complainant was as follows :The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9387 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.19835 of 2010) BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KOLKATA ... APPELLANT VERSUS KALIPADA BHAKAT & ORS RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT PRAFULLA C.PANT,J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby said Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has allowed the application of the respondent No.1, for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority (District Judge/ Additional District Judge, Alipore) and leave is granted to the said respondent to file the appeal under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).3. Brief facts of the case are that a plot of land measuring 133.41 sq. meters at 33 Coal Depot, Chetla Railway Siding also known as Chetla Station Yard was allotted by the Port Trust to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3008-3009 OF2010PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY... RESPONDENT (S) LTD. & ANR. WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4580 OF2010JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.The controversy in the present appeals arises out of the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner, a housing society, to Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) under the relevant Development Control Regulations (DCR) i.e. N-2.4 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the MRTP Act). The said claim has been resisted and rejected by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra, the two appellants in the appeals under consideration, on the ground that the land in question was not reserved for a public purpose in the development plan prepared under the MRTP Act and being shown as an existing garden therein, the claim to TDR has no legal basis. There are addit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9379 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.33798/2012) SHREE SHYAMJI TRANSPORT COMPANY ... Appellant Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.9380 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3928/2013) M/S R.S. LABOUR AND TPT. CONTRACTOR ..Appellant Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted. These appeals arise out of common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 26.7.2012 passed in CWP Nos. 8415/2012 & 8416/2012 whereby the High Court declined to interfere with the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) rejecting tender of the appellants- firms.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:- The appellants are partnership firms having five partners. Respondent No.2 - FCI invited tenders for Mandi Labour Contract (MLC) for its centres at Uchana, Sonepat, Narwana and Safidon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6197 OF2010LALITHA THERESA SEQUERIA (SINCE DIED) BY L.RS. ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS DOLFY A PIAS @ ADOLPHYS JOSEPH PAIS & ANR. ... RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The substituted appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) are the legal heirs of the plaintiff who had died during the pendency of the present appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 (Defendants 1 and2) are the brothers of the deceased plaintiff whereas respondent Nos. 3(i) and (ii) are the legal heirs of the original defendant No.3 who is the elder sister of the parties.2. The plaintiff had filed the suit (OS No.99 of 1995) out of which the present appeal has arisen seeking a declaration that the decree dated 16.8.1976 passed in OS No.397 of 1976 by the learned Munsiff, Mangalore was obtained by the defendants 1 and 2 (plaintiffs in that suit) by fraud and collusion designed to defeat the provisions of the Urban Land ...
Tag this Judgment!