Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 7 of about 727,858 results (6.378 seconds)

Feb 07 2019 (SC)

Punjab Wakf Board Vs. Sham Singh Harike

Court : Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.92 OF2019PUNJAB WAKF BOARD ...APPELLANT(S) SHAM SINGH HARIKE ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.93 OF2019PUNJAB WAKF BOARD ...APPELLANT(S) TEJA SINGH ...RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.These two appeals having been filed against two separate judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Civil Revisions filed by the respondents have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2 2. Brief facts giving rise to the above appeals which are necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are: Civil Appeal No.92 of 2019(Punjab Wakf Board vs. Sham Singh Harike) The appellant, Pubjab Wakf Board, claimed to be owner of land measuring 269 kanals 7 marlas, comprising in khewat No.462, khatauni Nos.589, 593, 599 and 596 in khasra Nos.103, 105, 102 min, 104, 106, of village Birmi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The appellant had let out the above-mentioned l...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2019 (SC)

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (Jal)through Its Director Vs. Tehri Hydro D ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1539 OF2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.13551 OF2013 JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. (JAL) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDIA LTD. (THDC) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted.2) The appellant herein was awarded the contract under which it was to execute certain Works. Agreement in this behalf was signed on 18th December, 1998. Some disputes arose between the parties. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause, two claims raised by the appellant were referred for arbitration. The arbitral tribunal was of three Arbitrators. This arbitration was under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.13551 of 2013 Page 1 of 25 referred to as the 1996 Act). The majority award pronounced on October 10, 2010 allowed the two claims to certain extent. On the said clai...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2019 (SC)

Shivnarayan (D) by Lrs. Vs. Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1052 OF2019SHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANIKLAL (D)THR. LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 13.11.2013 by which judgment writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 17.08.2011 of the III Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.60-A of 2010 has been upheld dismissing the writ petition.2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:- 2.1 The appellant filed Civil Suit No.60-A of 2010 before the District Judge praying for 1 declaring various transfer documents as null and void with regard to suit property mentioned in Para No.1A and Para No.1B of the plaint. Plaintiff also prayed for declaration that suit properties mentioned in Para Nos.1A and 1B are Joint Family Property of plaintiff and defendant Nos...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2019 (SC)

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta .

Court : Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No.1509 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.29417 of 2016) BALKRISHNA DATTATRAYA GALANDE Appellant VERSUS BALKRISHNA RAMBHAROSE GUPTA AND ANOTHER Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai dismissing the Writ Petition No.6873 of 2016 thereby affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court decreeing the first respondents suit for permanent injunction.3. The first Respondent-plaintiff claiming to be a tenant filed a suit in the year 2004 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant-landlord from disturbing his peaceful possession in the suit premises. Case of the first respondent- plaintiff was that he was running eating house, a pan shop 1 and was also doing fabrication work in the suit premises which has been constructed in tin sheet, wooden logs and rafters. According to the first re...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2019 (SC)

Er. K. Arumugam Vs. V. Balakrishnan

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1510 OF2019(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30317 of 2017) ER. K. ARUMUGAM Appellant VERSUS V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.08.2017 2. passed by the High Court of Madras in Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2017 affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2017 in and by which the appellant-TWAD Board was directed to pay Rs.600/- per sq. ft. to the first respondent for the land which the appellant-Board entered possession in 1991 with the consent of the first respondent. During the year 1991-1992, land to an extent of 86.5 cents 3. in Survey No.271/2A5 Dry Land in Walajabad Village was entered upon by the appellant-Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) with the consent of the first 1 respondent-land owner for the construction of Head works and Staff quarters. In the year 1993, the appella...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2019 (SC)

Dharam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. Prem Singh (D) Thr. Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.516 OF2009DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. ...APPELLANTS Vs. PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of High Court of Uttarakhand by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in suit No.9 of 1992. The High Court by its judgment has allowed the first appeal filed by the defendants-respondents setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1996 of the District Judge in Suit No.9 of 1992.2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal are:2. 1 One Badri Aswal was the owner of agricultural land in Khata/Khatauni No.46 of Village 1 Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi (earlier part of Tehri Garhwal) measuring a total of 62 Nali and 1 muthi. The said Badri had no issue. He married one Tulsa Devi. It is claimed that Tulsa Devi adopted one Bhopalu as her son after death of her husband but B...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2019 (SC)

M/S. Tata Motors Ltd. Through Its Chief Legal Counsel Vs. The Deputy C ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1822 of 2007 M/S. TATA MOTORS LTD. .Appellant versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPL) & ANR. .Respondents With C.A. No.3004-3006/2017 C.A. No.1821/2007 C.A. No.2756/2012 C.A. No.3856/2013 C.A. No.3824/2011 C.A. No.3827/2011 C.A. No.3820/2011 C.A. No.3821/2011 C.A. No.3825-3826/2011 C.A. No.3823/2011 C.A. No.3822/2011 SLP(C) No.15642-15643/2011 SLP(C) No.25905/2013 SLP(C) No.12806-12808/2016 SLP(C) No.12280/2014 1 C.A. No.5815/2012 C.A. No.8049/2009 C.A. No.6167/2009 C.A. No.6171/2009 C.A. No.6166/2009 C.A. No.6160/2009 C.A. No.6173/2009 C.A. No.6161/2009 C.A. No.6164/2009 C.A. No.6163/2009 C.A. No.6162/2009 C.A. No.6165/2009 C.A. No.5967/2011 C.A. No.5969/2011 C.A. No.6168/2009 SLP(C) No.19758/2009 SLP(C) No.19745/2009 SLP(C) No.19754/2009 SLP(C) No.19748/2009 SLP(C) No.19750/2009 SLP(C) No.19756/2009 SLP(C) No.19757/2009 SLP(C) No.19746/2009 SLP(C) No.19755/2009 SLP(C) No.19752/2009 ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2019 (SC)

The State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.224 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6068 of 2017) STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS Appellant AFROZ MOHAMMED HASANFATTA Respondent JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of the order of the High Court of Gujarat dated 03.05.2017 allowing the Criminal Revision No.264 of 2017 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat by which the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120-B IPC on the basis of the second supplementary charge sheet filed by the police in Criminal Case No.62851/2014 and ordered issuance of process to the respondent-accused. Brief factual matrix of the case is that a complaint was filed 3. by the Manager of ICICI Bank against M/s R.A. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. alleging that they hatched a conspiracy and as a part of this ...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2019 (SC)

Asgar Vs. Mohan Varma .

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1500 OF2019(@SLP(C) No.1216 OF2016 ASGAR & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS MOHAN VARMA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.1 2 Leave granted. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 11 December 2015. Dismissing a petition instituted by the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the claim set up by the appellants before 1 the executing court for the value of the improvements alleged to have been made by them on the land in dispute under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 19581 was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The High Court upheld the finding of the executing court that the appellants are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 18822. 3 The genesis of the dispute needs to be explained. The property encompassing an extent of 914 acres orig...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2019 (SC)

Ambi Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1723 OF2009Ambi Ram .Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Uttarakhand .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2001 (Old No.1518/1991) whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.2. A few facts need mention to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal. 1 3. The appellant was working as "Kanoongo/Patwari" at Didihat, Uttarakhand. He was prosecuted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as IPC).4. The charge against the appellant was that he assured one Gopal Singh that he would not arrest him nor would implicate hi...

Tag this Judgment!


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