//
archives

Appeal

This tag is associated with 817 posts

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) – Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and facilities” – the owners cannot claim any undivided interest over those facilities except the right of user – they cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP vis-à-vis the various provisions of the Apartment Act, the statutory declaration made by the colonizer and the Sale Deeds executed between the parties – Apex court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed before the High Court. The appeal is, therefore allowed. = DLF Limited ….. Appellant Versus Manmohan Lowe and others …..Respondents =published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41058

Haryana Apartment  Ownership  Act,1983 (for short “the Apartment Act”) –  Development Act – Declarations in respect of “common areas and  facilities” – the owners cannot claim any  undivided interest over those facilities except  the  right  of  user – they  cannot claim an undivided interest or right of management over them.- agreements executed between the colonizer and the DTCP  vis-à-vis the  various  provisions … Continue reading

Retrial – the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt without considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition – High court in revision set aside the retrial order and also set aside the main order of appeal which found prima faice case, with out considering and assessing the medical evidence – Apex court on petition for retrial held that no retrial can be order and confirmed the view of high court – Apex court on SLP against revision held that High court committed wrong in allowing the revision with out considering material as to why the lower appellant court set aside the acquittal order – Apex court remanded the case to high court for fresh disposal on this point = MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI ..Appellant Versus GANESAN & ORS. ..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41055

Retrial –  the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt   without     considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30 & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 arises – as they applied with in 6 weeks – reference was not barred by limitation = MADAN & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT (S) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41051

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30  & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order  of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 … Continue reading

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/ complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the same instead of reject the same as not maintainable under sec.301 Cr. P.C. – When an official Witness who conducted Test Identification parade – Being a Judicial Officer – how can he be permitted to depose in his chief examination contradicting his report/beyond his report which was not found in his record produced – is it not a duty of court or the public prosecutor to cross examine that witness statement made deliberately with out any basis infavour of Accused = Apex court set aside the orders of Lower court and High court and directed the lower court to recall the witness and made specific cross examination about the specific point deposed by him with out any record or beyond his record test identification report and gave an opportunity to file written submissions at the time of arguments = Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa …. Appellant VERSUS State of Orissa and others …. Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41046

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/     complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the … Continue reading

Minimum age limit for appointment of District & Sessions Judge in A.P. = no minimum age limit = it was not necessary for the appellant to have completed the age of 35 years for being appointed to the post in question as there is no provision in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 = Sasidhar Reddy Sura …..Appellant Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41044

 Minimum age limit for appointment of District & Sessions Judge in A.P. = no minimum     age limit =  it was not necessary for the appellant to have completed the age of           35 years for being appointed to the post in question as there is no         … Continue reading

Allotment of civic amenity sites = Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 a civic amenity site could not have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other than the one for which such area is reserved. Since the site in question was earmarked/reserved for “bank”, it could not have been allotted for use as a petrol pump. – High court declared the allotment as null and void- Apex court confirmed the same and dismiss the appeal = Civil Appeal No.10747/2013 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).31690/2011 PURUSHOTHAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41037

 Allotment of civic amenity sites =  Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976  a civic amenity site could  not          have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other         than the one for which such area is reserved.  Since  the  site  in         … Continue reading

Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. …Appellants Versus Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41031

Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by     courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench =       invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of  23   tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup  Express.   Among those who … Continue reading

Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = The A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd. …..Appellant. Versus M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. (in liquidation) rep. by the Official Liquidator, Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41026

Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by     the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator  of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = … Continue reading

Section 31(4) , Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, When there is a difference of opinions in appointment of a professor – the decision of the Chancellor is final = Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon …. Appellant Versus The Chancellor, Lucknow University & Ors …. Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41022

Section 31(4) , Section  31(8)  (a)  of  the  U.P.  State                          Universities Act, 1973,  When there is a difference of opinions in appointment of a professor  – the decision of the Chancellor is final =                 appellant holds the prescribed  and … Continue reading

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) – live in relationship in the nature of marriage – A concubine can not be considered as live in relationship in the nature of marriage – not entitled for any relief under the Act = Indra Sarma … Appellant Versus V.K.V. Sarma … Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41007

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short  “the DV Act”) – live in relationship in the nature of marriage – A concubine can not be considered as live in relationship in the nature of marriage – not entitled for any relief under the Act = whether  a  “live-in relationship” would amount to … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,165 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com