Legal Reference Library

In SAVYASACHI K. SAHAI vs Union Of India, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by four applicants who claimed to be the sons of previous Mutawalli or caretakers of the dargah at Amir Khusro Park and, therefore, asserted their right to some construction inside the tikona graveyard park, also known as Amir Khusro park. Mohd Shakeel, Mohd Allauddin and Mohd Mehmood (claiming to be the three sons of the late Mohd Yusuf and the late Mohammed Yunus) and Mohd Nasir (son of Mohd Hakmuddin) had sought review of an order passed by the high court on May 16. Under the said order, the court had observed that the petitioners did not have sufficient documentary evidence to prove their claim and sought a status report from the authorities concerned. What the court said After examining all the submissions and evidence on record, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar held that presumption of possession over an open land always is ...

The Supreme Court, in Behram Tejani vs. Azeem Jagani, has reiterated that a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right or interest on the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequences. The bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit restored a city civil court order, which had rejected the prayer for interim injunction restraining the defendants from from dis-possessing plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law. It was the case of defendants that the maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff was merely allowed to use and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy without any fees or compensation and that the suit premises belonged to them. Setting aside the high court order, the court referred to Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, wherein ...

The Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Mishra vs State Of U.P. has held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in non-metropolitan area in exercise of powers conferred on by Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, can assist a secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset and pass an order in the creditor’s favour for the purpose. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar and Justice Krishna Murari, differing with the contrary view by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in K. Arockiyaraj Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur & Anr., observed that the nomenclature ‘Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’ used by legislature in Section 14 of the Act includes Chief Judicial Magistrate functioning in non-metropolitan area and shall have jurisdiction to entertain an application made under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Bench observed: “It is clea...

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to pay the amount with an interest of 18 percent per annum, from the date the total demand amount was deposited with the Unitech, which is also facing several other complaints, including a joint claim by 144 home-buyers. A bench headed by Justice J M Malik held that the desire to acquire the property had "ruined the life" of the buyer and the real estate major "harassed" him by asking "for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of project". The consumer commission directed the firm to pay Rs 59,98,560 to Sanjay Arora, who had booked the flat in Sector Pi II, Greater Noida, in 2006, besides Rs one lakh for compensation and litigation charges. "As a matter of...

Full Bench of Bombay High Court has held that if the possession is taken before the Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act is published and/or before the award is passed, the land­ owner would been titled for interest as per Section 34 necessarily from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with Section 17 of the said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of Section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of possession. Full Bench comprising of Justices B.P. Dharmadhikari, R.K.Deshpande and P.N Deshmukh answering the reference made to it, also summarised the position of law in this regard. The Bench observed as follows. If the possession of the land under acquisition is taken under Section 16 of the said Act i.e. after an award is made by the Collector under Section 11 therein,the interest would be payable under Section 34 from the date of passing of the award The interest a...

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...

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                         ...

Cited: 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 Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Jagmandar Sin...

territorial jurisdiction The question, therefore, is as to whether present case is covered by clause  (a) or (d) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the one hand or proviso thereof is applicable and therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Code can also be invoked. relief sought by the plaintiff was for specific performance of agreement respecting immovable property coupled with relief to deliver possession to him, suit was covered by clause (d) of Section 16 of the Code and proviso had no application.  25. In the present case the plaintiff has not prayed for decree of mandatory injunction limiting to the execution of the lease deed. Had it been so, one would have queried as to whether, in the absence of any relief for possession, principle of K.G. Ringshia (supra) should be applied or that of Vipul Infrastructure (supra). Here, the plaintiff specifically asked for mandatory injunction against the defendants "to take all consequential steps for allowin...

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...