Legal Reference Library

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007 M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s) VERSUS Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C. No. 165 of 1993. 2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra. 3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimenta...

Cash and valuables recovered by police in the course of investigation need not be necessarily handed over to their owners pending trial since criminal courts only decide on granting interim custody to a person who lays a better claim of possession over the properties and it is up to civil courts to decide on lawful ownership after conclusion of criminal trial, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice M. Venugopal made the observations while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused seeking custody of Rs. 1 lakh and 124 grams of gold jewellery seized from him by T. Kallupatti police near here in connection with a criminal case booked against him on a charge of marrying several women claiming to be an Intelligence Bureau official. The petitioner, Thiruvarulrajan, assailed an order of a Judicial Magistrate in Peraiyur who had handed over the cash and the jewels to the mother of a woman whom the petitioner had married last since the aged widow had produced her bank p...

The questions that came before the bench of H.L. Dattu, CJ and Arun Mishra, J were whether in the wake of lease agreement entered into by registered owner with Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), the registered owner and insurer along with KSRTC can be fastened with the liability to make payment to the claimants and that whether KSRTC can recover the amount from registered owner and its entitlement to seek indemnification from insurer. Taking note of the definition of the term ‘owner’ as defined under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Court said that under the MV Act, the owner means a registered owner and where the agreement on hire-purchase or an agreement of hypothecation has been entered into or lease agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle is treated as an owner. It was held that the KSRTC being in actual control of the vehicle would also be liable to make the compensation, however, it can recover the amount from the registered owner or ...

Himachal Pradesh High Court- Considering the appeal with regard to grant of compensation to the claimants, a bench of Mansoor Ahmad Mir CJ, dismissed the appeal and held that the rights of victims of vehicular accidents cannot be defeated on flimsy grounds and the courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, technicalities and mystic maybes which in any way defeat the rights of the claimants. The Court observed that the aim and object of granting compensation is for the benefit of the victims/ persons, from whom the source of dependency has been taken away and who have lost their source of income and are deprived of the love and affection and hope of future because of the death of their kith and kin. The Court further noted that the Courts or the Tribunals have to decide such matters as early as possible, that too, summarily in terms of the mandate of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides mechanism to determine claim petitions and appeals. The...

1) SBP and Company vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. reported in AIR 2006 SC 450= (2005) 8 SCC 618 2)  Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. and another v. N.K. Modi (1996 (6) SCC 385 3)  R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar and anr. v. R. Chandrasekhara Thevar (AIR 1948 P.C. 12) 4) Atul Singh and others vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 602 5) India Household and Healthcare Ltd vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1376 6) Haryana Telecom Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 2354 7)  Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 565 8) Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs v. M. Varadappa Naidu reported in AIR 2004 SC 2609 9)  Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra- (2001) 7 SCC 417 10) Manipal Finance Ltd. vs. T. Bangarappa - 1994(Supp) 1 SCC 507 11) Sardar Trilok Singh vs. Satvadeo Tripathi - (1979) 4 SCC 396 12) K.A.Mathai vs. Kora Bibbikutti- (1996) 7 SCC 212 13) Orix Fi...

1) Trilok Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo  Tripathi,  AIR  1979  SC  850 2) K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr.,  (1996) 7 SCC 212 3) Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v.  Sudhir  Mehra,  (2001)  7  SCC 417 4) M/s. Damodar  Valley  Corporation  v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 440; 5) Instalment  Supply  (Private)  Ltd.  & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 53; 6) K.L.  Johar  &  Co.  v.  The Deputy Commercial  Tax  Officer,  Coimbtore  III,  AIR  1965  SC  1082;  7) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah                         ...