Posts

It is to be noted that the Division Bench has given liberty to respondent no. 4 to work out his remedy in a civil suit without even setting aside the findings of the learned Single Judge and the findings rendered in the judgments passed by the Civil Court and the High Court of Karnataka in a number of matters (mentioned supra). Thus, the said conclusion of the Division Bench of the High Court is not sustainable in law.

1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ___________ OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33813 of 2011)
H. N. Jagannath & Ors. ...........Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. ........Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. The judgment dated 19.04.2011 passed by the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in writ appeal no. 1575 of 2007
(LA-BDA) is called into question in this appeal. By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench though did not interfere with the
Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no.
49357 of 2004 dated 15.03.2007, disposed of the Writ Appeal
observing that respondent no. 4 herein (appellant before the
Division Bench) should work out its remedy in the suit in
2
accordance with law and if a suit is filed, the said suit shall be
considered without being influenced by the observations made in
the course of the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
Thus, the Div…

The issue regarding occupation of premises by respondent No. 1 in the guise of decree for injunction was not conclusively adjudicated except an observation made by the lower Appellate Court that respondent No. 1 has a moral obligation to vacate the premises. Therefore, in the absence of any enforceable order or decree granted in favour of the petitioner, he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 94 of C.P.C. At best, the petitioner could have invoked the provisions of Section 144 of C.P.C. for restitution if he was dispossessed based on the interim order or decree for injunction by respondent No. 1.

CRPSR 7946 / 2010


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
C.R.P.No. 721 OF 2017
DATED 17TH FEBRUARY, 2017
Between:
Yernena Satyanarayana … Petitioner
AND
Boppa Anantha Rao and others … Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Subrahmanyam
Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri G.Ramagopal
Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : --
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING
CVNR, J.
2 crp_721_2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 17-11-2009 in I.A.No.
484 of 2009 in O.S.No. 1475 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the trial Court').
2. I have heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
perused the record.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed O.S.No. 1475 of 2001 against the petitioner for
permanent injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit. The said decree and
judgment were reversed by learned IX Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam
(for short, 'the lower Appellate Court'), and the same w…

when the sale agreement was not proved - he has no locus standi to file this case - the appellant had no title to the suit land. All that he had claimed to possess in relation to the suit land was an agreement dated 24.04.1980 to purchase the suit land from its owner (Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria). The appellant, as mentioned above, failed to prove the agreement. In this view of the matter, the appellant had no prima facie case in his favour to file a suit nor he had even any locus to file the suit in relation to the suit land once the agreement was held not proved. The suit was, however, filed by the appellant almost after 12 years from the date of agreement and that too it was for declaration and mandatory injunction but not for specific performance of agreement. It was, in our opinion, a misconceived suit and was, therefore, rightly dismissed. Third, the suit was otherwise hopelessly barred by limitation because, as mentioned above, the date of agreement is 24.04.1980 whereas the suit was filed on 10.10.1992. ; Even the Will was rightly held not proved by the Courts below and we are inclined to uphold the finding on this issue too. Indeed when the deceased has two sons and one daughter (respondent Nos.1-3), why should he execute a Will in appellant’s favour, who was not related to him.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4383 OF 2009
Suresh Kumar through GPA ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Anil Kakaria & Ors. .…Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the
judgment and order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
R.S.A. No. 1522 of 2006 whereby the High Court
dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005
passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula in
C.A. No.20 of 2005.
2) The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the
respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of
1
2
which this appeal arises.
3) The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No.28,
measuring 1/4th acre in Industrial Area Phase-I Urban
Estate, Panchkula(hereinafter referred to as “the suit
land”).
4) Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as “HUDA”) had allotted the suit land to one
Sh…

under Section 325 IPC. jail sentence can not be substituted by fine= The High Court, in our view, ought to have either upheld the award of jail sentence of four years awarded by the Sessions Court or reduce the jail sentence to any reasonable term but it had no jurisdiction to fully set aside the jail sentence and substitute it by imposing only fine of Rs.10,000/-.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2437 OF 2010
The State of Uttar Pradesh Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Tribhuwan & Ors. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the State against the
judgment and order dated 10.02.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
No.211 of 1982 whereby the High Court partly allowed
the appeal filed by the accused persons and while
upholding the conviction of the five accused interfered
in the sentence and its quantum awarded to the
accused persons by order dated 22.01.1982 passed by
1
2
the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in
Sessions Trial No.132 of 1981.
2. Having regard to the short controversy, which
now remains for decision in this appeal as a result of
subsequent events occurring in the case after the
incident in question which took place way back in the
year 1980, it is not necessary to set out the facts in
detail except those which are relevant for …

. Pecuniary damages (Special Damages): (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries; 5 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage); (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)=After completion of his 10+2, the appellant had passed Diploma in Applied Research International, New Delhi which is a condition precedent for joining Merchant Navy. - aged 22 years, un married, 50% disablity to the right arm- he cannot join Merchant Navy. Even, it would be very difficult for him to get an alternate job easily, particularly in view of 50% permanent disability to his right arm. Thus, the appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on 8 account of permanent disability. The appellant is awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) for future medical expenses. The appellant must have suffered pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that he may not have bright future as before. He was just 22 years of age at the time of accident and was unmarried. It is unfortunate that he had to suffer at this young age when he was thinking of his bright future life. Having regard to the material on record, we award Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, on all counts, the appellant is awarded, in total, a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs only), instead of Rs.8,80,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Eighty Thousand only) awarded by the High Court, along with uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till 9 its realization. It is also directed that the payment of compensation with interest shall be made to the appellant within three months from today

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.__17998_____OF 2017
(Arising from SLP (C) No.4841/2016)
Ankur Kapoor ..Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has sought enhancement of
compensation by filing this appeal, questioning the judgment
dated 31.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 3218 of 2003 (O&M).
2
3. Facts leading to this appeal are as under:
In the accident that occurred at about 10.30 p.m. on
21.3.2000 at Jamnagar, the appellant sustained grievous injury
to his right arm which resulted in permanent disability to the
extent of 50% to his right arm. Since the appellant was
immediately admitted to the hospital at Jamnagar his life was
saved; the appellant remained as in-patient in the hospital
from 21.03.2000 to 31.05.2000 and had undergone several
surgeries. It is the case of the appellant that even after
discha…

In ASHWIN S. MEHTA AND ANOTHER v. CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court at paragraph No.70, held as under: Even if such a decree is set aside, the interest of the bona fide purchaser in an auction-sale is saved. In JANATHA TEXTILES AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court ruled at paragraph No.18 as follows: It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction-purchasers interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise. This principle has been stated and reaffirmed in a number of judicial pronouncements by the Privy Council and this Court. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions In SADASHIV PRASAD SINGH v. HARENDAR SINGH AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court held that the rights of the auction purchaser in the property purchased cannot be extinguished except in cases where the said purchase can be assailed on the grounds of fraud or collusion. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above referred judgments, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, despite the factum of the ex parte decree being set aside, the petitioner herein is entitled to protect his rights in respect of the subject property which he purchased in the Court auction. But in view of the earlier orders of this Court, confirming the orders passed by the Court below in the Revision filed by the decree-holder, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

CIVIL REVISION PETITIION No.2623 of 2012  

05-10-2017

Alapati Harichandrarao S/o Seshanna, Hindu, 76 years, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Eluru, West Godavari District.PETITIONER/3RD    

Nalluri Somasekhar,  S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 54 years, Cultivation, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Eluru, West Godavari District

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM                        

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: NONE APPEARED              

<Gist:

>Head Note


? Cases referred
1.AIR 1967 SC 608
2 (2006) 2 SCC 385
3 (2008) 12 SCC 582
4 (2015) 5 SCC 574

THE HONBLE JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2623 OF 2012    
ORDER:
      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of
notice, none appears for the respondents.
      The auction purchaser in E.P.No.183 of 2006 in O.S.No.44 of
2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is
the petitioner in the present revision filed under S…

By a Notification bearing No.102/2007-Customs issued on 14-09-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Government of India exempted the goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from the whole of the additional duty of the customs leviable under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when imported into India for subsequent sale. Paragraph 2 of the said notification gave a list of conditions to be fulfilled by the importer, for availing the benefit of exemption. 5. The respondent-assessee filed claims for refund with the jurisdictional Customs Officer. All the claims made by the respondent- assessee were partially allowed by the jurisdictional Customs Officer.The disallowance of a part of the refund claim was on two grounds viz., (1) that the timber logs imported by the respondent- assessee were not sold as such by them, but were sold locally after sawning them and cutting them into smaller sizes; and (2) that the logs cut into smaller sizes could not correlate to the items described in the import packing list.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI                      

C.E.A.Nos.57 of 2017

12-10-2017

The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh  Appellant      

Gayatri Timbers Private Limited, Opp: Steel Plant Main Road, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh .. Respondent  

Counsel for Appellant:  Mrs. Sundari R. Pisupati, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant

Counsel for respondent:Mr. K. Vijay Kumar

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND          
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI        

C.E.A.Nos.57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74 and 75 of 2017

COMMON ORDER: (V. Ramasubramanian, J)      

        The Revenue has come up with the above appeals under
Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the orders of the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
allowing the claims for refund made by the Assessee.