[Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2012]. The main prayer sought for in this Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is as under: "A) Issue necessary directions to the Director, CBI, New Delhi-Respondent No.4 for conducting fair and impartial investigation into the matter so as to find out the real culprits involved in the murder case to meet the ends of justice; "Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for some of the respondents in the Writ Petition would seek for modification in grant of the aforesaid prayer and submit that instead of this Court directing the Director, CBI, New Delhi to conduct the investigation into the complaint filed by the petitioner, the same could be conducted by the State Criminal Investigation Department (for short 'the C.I.D.'), headed by a police officer of the rank of Director General of Police (for short 'the D.G.P.). Though Shri Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has some reservations on the aforesaid submission made by Shri Luthra, we are of the considered opinion that the same appears to be very reasonable and, if the complaint filed by the petitioner is transferred to the State C.I.D. headed/monitored by a police officer of the rank of D.G.P., it should satisfy the interest of the petitioner.
↧
Vijay Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Karnataka [04/03/13]
↧
Indrajit Suresh Prasad Bind Vs. State of Gujarat [18/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04-12-2006 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 2006. The facts very briefly are that Anitha @ Rinkudevi got married to the appellant No. 1 in the year 2002. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of appellant No. 1. On 18-05- 2004, Rinkudevi poured kerosene over her body and died out of burns. Her brother Munnakumar lodged a complaint on 21-05-2004 before the Assistant Police Commissioner, 'J' Division, Ahmedabad City in which he alleged that Rinkudevi had written to him that the appellants were harassing her since two years after the marriage for not bringing dowry such as table, chair, sofa set, bed, scooter, colour T.V. and along with the complaint he produced xerox copy of a letter dated 16-02-2004 said to have been written by Rinkudevi. In the complaint, Munnakumar further alleged that the appellants were using slangs against Rinkudevi and used to beat her and were giving physical and mental harassment to her for not bringing dowry and instigated her to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene on her body.
↧
↧
Sushil K. Chakravarty (D) through LRS. Vs. M/s. Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. [19/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos.2600-2601 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3307-3308 of 2012]. The impugned order herein dated 17.10.2011 was passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court),whereby, it dismissed, by a common order, FAO (OS) no. 516 of 2009 and FAO(OS) no. 517 of 2009. Both the aforesaid intra-court appeals had been filed by Sushil K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Sushil K.C.)through his legal heirs Arun K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Arun K.C.) and Sunil K. Chakravarty (hereinafter referred to as, Sunil K.C.) in respect of agricultural land measuring 8 big has and 5 bis was with a farm house built thereon along with tube well, electricity connection etc. falling within the revenue estate of village Chhatarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. This property has also been described as Maharani Rosary. It would be relevant to mention, that the instant impugned order arises out of two suits, one filed by M/s. Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, Tej Properties), bearing CS (OS) no. 2501 of 1997, against Sushil K.C. and the other filed by Sushil K.C., bearing CS (OS) no. 1348 of 1996,against Tej Properties.
↧
Shivdev Kaur (D) by LRS. Vs. R.S. Grewal [20/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 5063-5065 of 2005]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.7.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 257 of 1982 and Regular Second Appeal No. 608 of 1982 and Cross Objection No. 14-C of 1982 by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court as well as the trial court so far as the nature of the rights of the appellant in the suit property are concerned. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: One Dr. Hira Singh had acquired a huge property in his life time. He executed various deeds creating certain rights in favour of his sole son Dr. Shivdev Singh Grewal and two daughters, namely, Smt. Dayawant Kaur and Dr. Shivdev Kaur including the Will dated 16.9.1944, creating certain rights in favour of the appellant. Dr. Hira Singh died on 11.4.1945. Shri Shivdev Singh Grewal and Smt. Dayawant Kaur died leaving behind their children. Dr. Shivdev Kaur claimed certain rights on the basis of the Will dated 16.9.1944, and for the same she filed Suit No. 161/399/74 on 4.10.1974 against her nephew for mandatory injunction seeking his eviction from the suit premises claiming absolute right/ownership over the same in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1956').
↧
Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Rajasthan High Court [20/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.12406 of 2011]. [Civil Appeal No. 2635 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.18102 of 2012]. [Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.20706 of 2011]. Leave granted" the rules of the game the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced "[1]" changing the rules of the game after the game was played is clearly impermissible"[2]. The above, and statements to the similar effect have petrified into a rule of law in the context of employment under the State or its instrumentalities. Whether such principle of law is immutable, what are those 'rules of the game' which cannot be changed after the game is either commenced or played, in our opinion requires an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench of this Court. Such a question arises in the case in hand in the background of the following facts:- The respondent High Court undertook the recruitment process for filling up of 13 posts of Translators by issuing a notification dated 17thSeptember, 2009. It appears that under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, "eligible candidates" are required to appear for a Written Examination consisting of two papers of translation from English to Hindi and vice versa carrying 100 marks each followed by a Personal Interview for 50 marks.
↧
↧
Sanjay Dutt (A-117) Vs. The State of Maharashtra through CBI (STF), Bombay [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2007]. The above said appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007respectively by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. Charges: A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like RDX or inflammable substances or fire- arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunition, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunition and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises.
↧
Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. [18/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No.6162 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, passed in Appeal No.478 of 2005 in Notice of Motion No.503 of 2004 in Suit No.1924 of 1988. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the appellant had purchased five Tata Diesel Vehicles from the respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.9,58,913/- which was to be paid in 8 installments through respondent No.2 as per repayment schedule. The appellant alleges that eight Bills of Exchange were drawn by the respondent no.1 upon the respondent no.2 - banker of the appellant and by way of which the entire amount was paid. Respondent no.1 filed Suit No.1924 of 1988 on 2.6.1988 against the appellant as well as the banker for recovery of sum of Rs.5,66,000/- along with interest. Summons were served upon the appellant and he entered appearance through advocate to contest the suit. However, subsequently under the impression that the entire amount had already been paid, he did not file the written statement. The High Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') without considering any issue involved therein or taking note of the pleadings in the plaint itself.
↧
Babu Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai [19/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2008]. These are appeals against the judgment dated 06.09.2007 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.641, 551 and 552 of 2006. The facts very briefly are that on 25.01.2004 at 22:45 hours, Dhanaprabhu (hereafter referred to as the 'informant') lodged a First Information Report in Police Station K.4, Anna Nagar. In this First Information Report, the informant stated: his father and he had been running a plastic company in the name of 'Economic Plastic Industries' and his younger brother, Ravi, is also in the said business. There was previous enmity between Ravi and one Elumalai and on 25.01.2004 at around 5.30 p.m. Elumalai telephoned to the wife of Ravi, Vijayalakshmi, and threatened her saying 'Ask your husband to behave or else, things will be different' and Vijayalakshmi informed this to her husband Ravi. On the same day, at around 10.00 p.m., the informant, Ravi and his friend Gubendiran were on their way to Naduvankarai Pillaiyar Kovil Street, through the Naduvankarai Bridge. While crossing the Seema Matriculation School at around 10.15 in the night, they saw Elumalai, and Ravi asked Elumalai as to why he telephoned to his wife and threatened her, and at once Elumalai and Prakash retaliated and took out knives from their hips and hacked Ravi on his head. Ravi's head got cut and smashed and Ravi fell down in a pool of blood.
↧
Subodh Nath Vs. State of Tripura [19/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2007]. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment dated 08.06.2005 of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2004. The facts very briefly are that on 09.10.1998, Ashutosh took out his cows for grazing but did not return home till dusk and his cousin, Kripesh, along with others searched for Ashutosh but could not find him. On the next day (10.10.1998) at about 8.30 a.m., he again went out looking for Ashutosh and found his dead body with injuries lying in a jungle at NaliaTilla. Kripesh then lodged an FIR at the Panisagar Police Station and the police registered a case and held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased. In course of the investigation, the police apprehended Pranajit, who was working as a labourer under Ashutosh and Kripesh, from District Cachar and brought him to Dharamnagar and during interrogation Pranajit disclosed that Ashutosh had been killed by the two appellants. The statement of Pranajit was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and on completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants. At the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 19 witnesses. Kripesh, the informant, was examined as PW-1, Patal, the elder brother of Pranajit, was examined as PW-2 and he stated that PW-13 had disclosed to him that the appellants assaulted the deceased by an axe and a lathi.
↧
↧
Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2012]. [Criminal Appeal No. 1129-1130 of 2007]. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 29.11.2006 and 6.6.2007 passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the `TADA') in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, by which the appellant (A-41) has been convicted under Sections 3(3), 5 and 6 TADA, as well as under Sections 3 and 7 read Section 25(1-A) (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act'), Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1908), and Section 9-B(1) (b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1884'). Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As all the main factual and legal issues involved in this appeal have already been discussed by us and determined in the main connected appeal i.e. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI (Criminal Appeal No.1728 of 2007), there is thus, no occasion for us to repeat the same. The Bombay Blasts occurred on 12.3.1993, in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto, there was loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the said matter at the initial stage, but subsequently the investigation of the same was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI'), and then upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons.
↧
Ahmed Shah Khan Durrani @ A.S. Mubarak S. Vs. State of Maharashtra [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1438 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2007]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.2007, passed by Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') for the Bombay Blast, Greater Bombay, in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993, convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA, and awarding the punishment of 5 years RI, along a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the appellant (A-20). Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI') and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons.
↧
Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Vs. The State of Maharashtra through STF, CBI Mumbai [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1178 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2011]. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellants(A-3, A-4 and A-8) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI). The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.09.2006 and 27.07.2007 respectively whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.Charges: A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people.
↧
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. The State of Maharashtra through CBI Bombay [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007]. [Criminal Appeal No. 609-610 of 2008]. This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons. Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows: Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibrahim agreed tosend arms and ammunitions from abroad. Tiger Memon, in association withhis men, particularly, the accused persons, received those arms andammunitions through sea-coasts of Bombay. In continuation of the saidconspiracy, Tiger Memon sent some of the accused persons to Dubai and fromthere to Pakistan for training and handling in arms and ammunitions.
↧
↧
State of Maharashtra Vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul [21/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2011]. [Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2011]. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93, acquitting the respondent of all the charges. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the respondent. Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto, there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (herein after referred to as 'CBI') and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Out of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was filed, 40 accused could not be put to trial as they have been absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA framed charges against 138 accused persons.
↧
Secretary to Government of India Vs. Sawinder Kaur [21/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 30685 of 2012]. The husband of the respondent No. 1, late Gurnam Singh Dhillon, had applied for grant of freedom fighter pension on the basis that he had participated in the freedom struggle and had joined the Indian National Army or Azad Hind Fauj (for short "the INA") during 1941-42 in Singapore. His claim for pension was based on the scheme, namely, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for brevity "the 1980 Scheme"). Prior to the said Scheme, the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (for short "the 1972 Scheme) was in vogue from 15.8.1972. The benefit of the 1972 Scheme was extended to certain categories of freedom fighters and their family members and the said Scheme was liberalized in the year 1980. Under the said liberalized scheme, anyone who had participated in the INA and in the Indian Independence League (IIL) was also treated to have participated in the National Liberation Movement. Under the said Scheme, a person, claiming pension on the grounds of being in custody in connection with the freedom movement, could be considered for grant of pension on production of imprisonment/ detention certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release and various other factors.
↧
J. Sundramma Vs. State of Karnataka [21/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No.2648 of 2013 arising out of SLP © No.18231 of 2011]. The appellant is the widow of the original applicant, S. Ramakrishna, who was allotted a site bearing No.7119 measuring 6 meters x 9 meters in Vijayanagar, 4th Stage, 2nd Phase, Mysore, by the Mysore Urban Development Authority, under general category. The allottee made part payment of the consideration amount, however, the payment was not made within the stipulated time. The husband, however, passed away on 25th May, 1994, as a result of which the appellant made an application for allotment of the plot in her name. This application was accepted on 5th March,1998 and the plot was allotted in the name of the appellant. The total price of the site was fixed at Rs.10,000/- . The appellant deposited Rs.1157/- along with the application and Rs.1500/- within the stipulated fifteen days of receipt of the allotment letter. She was to pay Rs.7343/- within ninety days from the date of the issuance of the grant certificate. By mistake, being illiterate, she deposited only Rs.5000/-, leaving a sum of Rs.2343/- unpaid. The Mysore Urban Development Authority issued a notice on 19th January, 2005 indicating that the total price of the site is Rs.10,000/-, out of which the allottee had paid only Rs.7657/-, thus leaving a balance, to be paid, of Rs.2343/-.
↧
Margaret Almeida Vs. Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. [22/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2683-2685 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of 2012]. Through the instant common judgment, we propose to dispose of the following matters which came to be filed in this Court assailing the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay(hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court') in Appeal Nos.489 of 2011,413 of 2011 and 573 of 2011: Margaret Almeida & Ors. vs. Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30847-30849 of 2012),(ii) Priti Mungrey & Ors. v. The Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30867- 30869 of 2012), and (iii) Anthony D'Sa v. The Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Civil Appeals & Ors. (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28256-28257 of 2012). During the Course of hearing, Civil Appeals (arising out of Special LeavePetition no. 30847-30849 of 2012) were treated as the lead case. We will, therefore, mainly rely on the pleadings thereof, for narrating the factual controversy. Reference will be made to pleadings in the other connected matters only for recording submissions based thereon, advanced during the course of hearing.
↧
↧
Narinder Singh Rao Vs. A.V.M. Mahinder Singh Rao [22/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 of 2011]. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 3937 of 2005 and Cross Objection No. 9-C of 2005 dated 21st May,2010 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, these appeals have been filed by original defendant No.1. The facts giving rise to the appeals in a nutshell are as under: Rao Gajraj Singh and his wife Sumitra Devi were occupiers of the suit property. The property appears to have been constructed somewhere in 1935and as per the municipal record, it belonged to Rao Gajraj Singh. A document was executed by Rao Gajraj Singh to the effect that upon death of himself or his wife, the suit property would be inherited by the survivor. The said writing was attested by Rao Devender Singh, the son of Rao Gajraj Singh's real sister. Rao Gajraj Singh expired on 29th March, 1981 and thereafter Sumitra Devi, who had eight children, started residing at Ranchi with the appellant. Somewhere in 1980s, Sumitra Devi got constructed some shops in the suit premises and the said shops were given on rent. On 1st June, 1989, Sumitra Devi executed a Will whereby she bequeathed the suit property to one of her sons, namely, Narinder Singh Rao (the present appellant and original defendant No.1) and she expired on 6th June, 1989. After the death of Sumitra Devi, her four children, one of them being the present respondent No.1, filed a suit for declaration claiming their right in the suit property. Subsequently, the plaint was amended so as to make it a suit for partition. According to the case of the said children, the Will was not genuine and therefore, the said Will could not have been acted upon and as Sumitra Devi was survived by eight children, the suit property would be inherited by all the children. Thus, each child had1/8th share in the suit property.
↧
Madhavi Amma Vs. S. Prasannakumari [22/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736 of 2005]. These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 18.12.2002passed in CRP No.1411/1996 (C) and CRP No.833/1996(H). CRP No.1411/1996 (C)was preferred by one Appukuttan Nair along with the appellant (s) here in challenging the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.10.1995 in RCA No.133/1991 by which the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court in its order dated 02.7.1991 in RCP No.140/1985 was confirmed. CRP. No.833 of 1996 (H) was preferred by the respondents herein challenging the order of the Appellate Authority(LR), Attingal in AA No.37/91 dated 13.11.1995 by which the order of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram dated 19.02.1991 in OA No.78/1988 filed by the predecessor of the appellant (s), namely, Appukkuttan Nair under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for the purchase of his Kudikidappu right in respect of survey No.1536/A of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk was reversed. By the common order of the Division Bench, the eviction ordered by the Authorities under the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1963 and Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was confirmed and the order of the appellate authority dated 13.11.1995 in AA 37/1991 was set aside.
↧
M/s. Deep Trading Company Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation [22/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2673 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24686 of 2007]. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal, by special leave are, whether respondent No. 1 has forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator having not done so after the demand was made and till the appellant had moved the court under Section 11(6) and, if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the appointment of the arbitrator by respondent No. 1 in the course of the proceedings under Section 11(6) is of any legal consequence and the Chief Justice of the High Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and appointed an arbitrator? The above questions arise from these facts: On 01.11.1998, an agreement for kerosene/LDO dealership was entered into between the first respondent - Indian Oil Corporation (for short, "the Corporation") and the appellant - Deep Trading Company (for short, "the dealer") for the retail sales supply of kerosene and light diesel oil in the area specified in the schedule. In the course of dealership agreement allegedly some violations were committed by the dealer. Following the show cause notice dated04.03.2004, the Corporation on 12.03.2004 suspended the sales and supplies of all the products to the dealer with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the action of the Corporation, the dealer filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "1996 Act") before the District Judge, Etawah seeking an order of injunction against the Corporation from stopping the supply of Kerosene/LDO. On 25.03.2004, the District Judge, Etawah passed a restraint order against the Corporation.
↧