Skip to content


Supreme Court of India Court August 2016 Judgments Home Cases Supreme Court of India 2016 Page 16 of about 152 results (0.060 seconds)

Aug 01 2016 (SC)

Lok Prahari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.657 OF2004Lok Prahari ... Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. A short but serious and significant issue has been raised in this public interest litigation, which pertains to government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act with objects pertaining to public welfare, etc. and the petition has been filed through its General Secretary, who appeared in person. He is a former officer of All India Services and has ventilated grievances which are definitely serious one, touching the State exchequer and conduct of the persons who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main submission made in the petition is that several former Chief Ministers had occupied Government bungalows of Type VI even after demitting office of the Chie...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2016 (SC)

Madina Begun and Anr Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6687 OF2016Madina Begum & Anr. .Appellants versus Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors. .Respondents JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The two questions for our consideration are whether the suit filed by the appellant Madina Begum was barred by limitation in terms of the first part of Article 54 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and whether the High Court ought to have decided the first appeal filed by Madina Begum not only on the preliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues. As far as the first question is concerned our answer is in the negative and as far as the second question is concerned, in our opinion, the High Court ought to have considered all the issues in the first appeal rather than only the preliminary issue of limitation.2. The land in dispute in this appeal is 1.63 acres of agricultural land bearing khasra nos. 438, 439, 440 and 456 (total area being 2.13 acres) in Patwar...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //