Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., I (1997) CLT 338 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 1005
Sunday, July 29, 2012
In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.
In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.
Narmada Bachao Andolan V (2011) SLT 36
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Order 7, Rule 11 - to be decided only on the basis of plaint
The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC614, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson / Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Transfer at the behest of politicians
2008(5)ALT13(SC), [2007(115)FLR363], JT2007(12)SC467, 2008-1-LW79, (2008)1MLJ1044(SC), 2007(11)SCALE271, (2007)8SCC150, (2007)2SCC(L&S)806, [2007]10SCR72, 2008(1)SLJ430(SC), (2008)1UPLBEC523
There is nothing wrong as politicians are elected representation of the people and they have the prerogative to recommend transfers.
Ex parte report - Stamp Authority
2005 (98) RD 511), Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur & another and 2009 (27) LCD 442, Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. & others. In para-13 of the judgment provides as under:-
"13. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub-Registrar has referred any other material in support of their orders. In Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpurt and another, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 (para-17), the ambit and scope of Section 47-A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 253 and various other cases it has been held that under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden."
See also: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1429837/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)