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...

The Supreme Court in Prakash Nagardas Dubal Shaha vs. Sou Meena Prakash Dubal Shahhas has held that unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of application filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Division Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh made this observation in an appeal filed by the Husband against the order of High Court which had held that his wife was entitled to seek maintenance from him. By way of maintenance the Magistrate had fixed Rs. 5,000/- per month for the wife, same amount for the daughter and Rs. 4,000/- for the minor son, which was later upheld by the High Court. The order of Sessions Court reversing the findings of the Magistrate on the ground that the wife had initiated divorce proceedings at an earlier point of time, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which came into force only later in 2005 was wrongly invoked by the wife, was also set aside by the High Court. Supreme Court said that i...

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...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4610 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4609 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4657 of 2009] V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present appeals arise out of the impugned common final judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4468 of 2008 etc. by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein by a majority of 2:1, a Three Judge bench upheld the validity of the impugned policy decision dated 06.03.2007 on the ground that the Union of India is competent to take the policy decision and further it has held that it is either arbitrary, unjust or violative of the fundamental rights of the appellants herein. Since the facts in all these appeals raise the same issue for our consideration, for the sake of brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.4610 of 2009. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: ...

No compassion can be shown to a person who has no will to work, the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding a termination order against a clerk of District Court who was accused of absenting herself from duty frequently. One Suman Taneja, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Court had approached the Delhi High Court against the termination order passed against her. Perusing the records, the Court observed that the petitioner was not performing her duties with due diligence and she was found guilty of taking unauthorized leaves and she has failed to show that the leaves that were taken by her were sanctioned by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has decided at her own will when to take leave and when to report for duty, Justice Ved Prakash Vaish said. Even after issuance of repeated Memos, the petitioner neither report back to duty nor submitted anysatisfactory explanation for her absence, which shows that she was absolutely incorri...

The Patna High Court in All India Students Federation vs. State of Bihar, has observed that lack of adequate attendance must not be read as exclusive circumstance for debarring a student from taking his examinations and only when it is coupled with other circumstances, showing a general derelict behaviour, may be proper reason for debarring. The Court also directed the Principal of Patna Women’s College and Vice Chancellor of Patna University to condone the attendance shortage of all those students, who have inadequate attendance to the extent of 60%. These directions were issued by a Division Bench comprising of the Chief Justice I. A. Ansari and Justice Anjana Mishra on a writ petition by All India Students Federation. The Students Federation had alleged improper exercise of discretion by the Principal of the college in the matter of condoning the attendance shortage and usurping the jurisdiction vested in the Vice Chancellor by the Principal by deciding the condonation applications ...

The Supreme Court in Axis bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited has held that the partial deposit before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt, and hence refundable to the appellant on disposal of appeal. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Axis Bank against the Gujarat High Court Judgment wherein it was held that the deposit made before DRAT is refundable to the appellant therein. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act states that, for the Tribunal to ‘entertain’ the appeal, the aggrieved person has to make a deposit of fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the DRT, whichever is less. T...