In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Designate is set aside. The application under Show

In view of the foregoing, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Designate is set aside. The application under section 11 of the Act filed by appellant before the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court is allowed and Justice P.K.Bahri (Retd.) who was the earlier Arbitrator is appointed as the sole arbitrator to decide the appellant’s claim in regard to the additional cost for completing the work. It is open to the respondent to raise all contentions against the claim of the appellant including the contention of limitation, maintainability and res judicata, before the arbitrator. Nothing in this order shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits or tenability of the claim of the appellant regarding extra cost.

In the course of arguments before us, on behalf of the appellant certain names of retired High Court Judges were indicated to the senior counsel for the Corporation for appointment as sole arbitrator but the Corporation did not agree to any of the..

In the course of arguments before us, on behalf of the appellant certain names of retired High Court Judges were indicated to the senior counsel for the Corporation for appointment as sole arbitrator but the Corporation did not agree to any of the names proposed by the appellant. In the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to send the matter back to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate order on the application made by the dealer under Section 11(6). Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Arbitration Case No. 107 of 2004, M/s. Deep Trading Company 12Page 13 v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation and others, is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for fresh consideration by the Chief Justice or the designate Judge, as the case may be, in accordance with law and in light of the observations made above. No costs.

Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996

In our opinion, this was a completely incorrect direction particularly because way back in 1982, plan No.1/75 was treated as cancelled and there was no revival of that plan. 2026. Last but not the least, respondent No.1 herein, Karpaga Nagar Nala ..

In our opinion, this was a completely incorrect direction particularly because way back in 1982, plan No.1/75 was treated as cancelled and there was no revival of that plan. 2026. Last but not the least, respondent No.1 herein, Karpaga Nagar Nala Urimai Sangam represented by Shri A. Shamugavel had filed an Original Suit No.1106/86 in the Court of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town in his capacity as a resident of Karpaga Nagar Colony wherein he had sought for an injunction restraining the Trust from selling or using the property for any purpose than the purpose for which it was reserved in LP MR 1/75. For all these reasons, we cannot affirm the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent is directed to be dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/

(1) The appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is, therefore, not protected against specific performance of the contract between the plaintiffs and the owner defendants in the suit. (2) The transfer in favour of the appellant pendente lite is ..

(1) The appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is, therefore, not protected against specific performance of the contract between the plaintiffs and the owner defendants in the suit. (2) The transfer in favour of the appellant pendente lite is effective in transferring title to the appellant but such title shall remain subservient to the rights of the plaintiff in the suit and subject to any direction which the Court may eventually pass therein. Since the appellant has purchased the entire estate that forms the subject matter of the suit, the appellant is entitled to be added as a party defendant to the suit. (4) The appellant shall as a result of his addition raise and pursue only such defenses as were available and taken by the original defendants and none other With the above additions, I agree with the order proposed by my Esteemed Brother, M.Y. Eqbal, J. that this 
appeal be allowed and the appellant added as party defendant to the suit in question. 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The University has to live the role of Loco Parentis and show its concern to redress the grievances in proper perspective. Not for nothing Ralph Waldo Emerson had said “the secret of education is respecting pupil”. Thus, the necessity ..

The University has to live the role of Loco Parentis and show its concern to redress the grievances in proper perspective. Not for nothing Ralph Waldo Emerson had said “the secret of education is respecting pupil”. Thus, the necessity of the visually impaired students 1Page 15 should have primacy in the mind of the Empowered Committee of the University. Education for visually impaired students is a great hope for them and such a hope is the brightest bliss in their lives. History has recorded with pride that some men with visual impairment have shown high intellectual prowess. The anguish and despondency in the life of Milton, the famous English poet, did not deter him to carry out the mission of his life. Lack of vision could not destroy his Will power. Needless to say that he had the support of the society. The ancient sage “Ashtavakra” while laying down the traffic rules had categorically stated that the blind man has the first right on the road. Thus, emphasis has always been laid on the visually impaired persons for many a reason. When we say so, we may not be understood to have said that otherwise impaired or disabled people are to be treated differently in the constitutional and statutory scheme. We have only laid emphasis on the visually impaired students for the purpose of present case. It is the need of the present time that the University shall look into the matter and mitigate the grievances of the visually impaired students as far as possible. We have already indicated that we are not experts. But we are disposed to think that the problem has remained unsolved. The same is required to be addressed to in an apposite manner. We do not intend to say that it has not at all been addressed but there has to be more focus, more empathy and more sensitivity. Therefore, we permit the appellant-organisation to submit a representation indicating its grievances and the views to the said Committee within three days which shall be dealt with by the Committee within a week hence.

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Constitution of India

Court revealed that  no hesitation in holding that disparaging remarks, as recorded by the learned single Judge, are not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an integral part and further that could ..

Court revealed that  no hesitation in holding that disparaging remarks, as recorded by the learned single Judge, are not necessary for arriving at the decision which he has rendered, the same being not an integral part and further that could not have been done when the appellant was not a party before the court and also he was never afforded an opportunity to explain his conduct, and the affirmation of the same by the Division Bench on the foundation that it has not caused any prejudice and he can fully defend himself when a subsequent litigation is instituted, are legally unacceptable. Accordingly, we expunge the extracted remarks hereinbefore and also any remarks which have 24 (2007) 3 SCC 587 Page 22 22 been made that are likely to affect the reputation of the appellant. Since, the appeal is confined only to expunging of adverse remarks, the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Constitution of India, 1952

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Show

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 3 read with s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 clearly mandates that apart from an offence punishable under the PC Act, any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified thereunder can also be tried by a Special Judge. Sub-s. (3) of s. 4 specifies that a Special Judge, when trying any case, can also try any offence, other than an offence specified in s.3, with which the accused may, under the Cr.P.C., be charged at the same trial. In view of s. 22 of PC Act, provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to be applied to trials for offence under the PC Act, subject to certain modifications. [para 17-18] 1.2 The second supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.12.2011 was filed in the FIR No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045 dated 21.10.2009. From the said second charge-sheet it is clear that the offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the course of 2G Scam Cases and, as such, they have been made accused in the 2G Scam Case. [para 21] 1.3 The co-accused of 2G Scam case charged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be tried only by the Special Judge. The Special Judge alone can take cognizance of the offence specified in s. 3 (1) of PC Act and conspiracy in relation thereto. A magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence as specified in s. 3 (1) of the PC Act. The petitioners are co-accused in the said 2GScam case. In this background s. 220,Cr.P.C. will apply and the petitioners though accused of different offences, i.e., u/s 420/120-B IPC, alleged to have been committed in the course of 2G Spectrum transactions, u/s 223 of Cr. P.C. they may be charged and can be tried together with the other co-accused of 2G Scam cases. 

the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. [Para 13] [1150 E-G] Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar &..

the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute. [Para 13] [1150 E-G] Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. (1974) 2 SCC 393 and Dhannalal v Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 - relied on. 1.2. Rule of pleadings postulate that a plaint must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. For the said purpose, averments disclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for therein must be considered in their entirety and the court would not be justified in determining the question, one way or the other, only having regard to the reliefs claimed de'hors the factual averments made in the plaint. [Para 16] [1151-E,F,G] Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 760 - relied on. 1.3. Under s.24 of CPC, the High Court has jurisdiction to suo motu withdraw a suit or appeal, pending in any court subordinate to it, to its file and adjudicate itself on the issues involved therein and dispose of the same. Unless the High Court decides to transfer the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, to some other court or the same court, it is obliged to try, adjudicate and dispose of the same. The High Court is competent to dispose of the suit on preliminary issues, as contemplated in Order 14 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, which may include the issues with regard to maintainability of the suit. If the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. [Para 17] [1151-51 H,A,B,C] 1.4. If on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power - under the said provision. And if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the suit has to be disposed of either by the High Court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaningful manner as per the procedure prescribed in the CPC and not on one's own whims. [Para 17] [1152 C-E] T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and ANOTHER (1977) 4 SCC 467 - relied on. 2.1 In the instant case, when the transferred suits and the appeals came up for consideration before the High Court, it, without passing any order on the application preferred by the appellants for recall of the ex-parte transfer order, dismissed the suits on the ground that the issues raised in the suits were being examined in the writ petition. The procedure adopted by the High Court is unknown to law. The object of filing of the suits could be a dubious and indirect attempt on the part of respondent No.4, to derive some undue advantage in connivance with the appellants, yet that was no ground to dismiss the suits summarily in the aforenoted manner. [Para 18] [1152,F,G,H, 1153 AB] 2.2 One of the fundamental norms of judicial process is that arguable questions either legal or factual, should not be summarily dismissed without recording a reasoned order. Mere entertaining of the writ petition, to which the appellants were not parties, even if it involved determination of similar issues was not a good ground to dismiss the two suits without granting opportunity to the parties to prove their respective stands.

In the result, our answers to the question referred by the Division Bench is as under: “The work of quality audit of roads or work of similar nature to be done by a person who must enjoy trust and confidence of the public authority is not co..

In the result, our answers to the question referred by the Division Bench is as under: “The work of quality audit of roads or work of similar nature to be done by a person who must enjoy trust and confidence of the public authority is not covered by the expression “the execution of any work or supply of any materials or goods” within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 72 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881. Hence, it is not necessary for Municipal Commissioner to assign such work only by inviting tenders as contemplated by the proviso, i.e. sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the said Act.

On the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Sathe, learned Senior  Counsel requests the Court to grant adequate time to the Municipal Corporation to make administrative arrangements consistent with the judgment of the Court. Learned counsel states ..

On the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Sathe, learned Senior  Counsel requests the Court to grant adequate time to the Municipal Corporation to make administrative arrangements consistent with the judgment of the Court. Learned counsel states that a period of one year may  be granted in order to enable the Municipal Corporation to make necessary arrangements for being represented in Courts and Tribunals in litigation involving the Corporation. Having due regard to the fact that in an earlier order of a Division Bench of this Court, a period of one year was granted by the Court to the Municipal Corporation, we are of the view that a period of six months would be sufficient in the interests of justice. We accordingly allow the Municipal Corporation a period of six months to make necessary administrative arrangements so as to ensure due compliance with the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council.

Advocate Act, 1961

Constitution of India

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along w..

R.D.Kaundal, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the present lis is squarely covered bythe judgment dated 28.7.2010, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, along with connected matters and the judgment dated 7.5.2013, rendered by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (Civil) No.21939-22009/2011, titled as State of H.P. and others versus Som Nath and others.

Judgment dated 8.7.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2-N/14 of 2013 and order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib are set aside. Defenda..

Judgment dated 8.7.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 2-N/14 of 2013 and order dated 15.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib are set aside. Defendant Pritam Chand is restrained from interfering and blocking the path by raising construction on land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 1/38khasra No. 39, measuring 1-10 Bigha situate in Mauza Ghunglon, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, HP. Plaintiffs are permitted to use the Dol for ingress and egress till the disposal of the main suit. It is made clear that the observations made herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.e-height:normal;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'>perversity nor any illegality in the orders passed by both the authorities below. The authorities below have correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.

The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs t..

The menace of encroachment on the Government land has assumed alarming proportion. Section 122 (1) (c) has been incorporated to curb this tendancy of encroachments made on Government land by unscrupulous persons. The Government land belongs to all and all out efforts must be made to protect the same. PW-1 Yagya Dutt and PW-2 Ashok Kumar have categorically deposed that petitioner has encroached upon the Government land comprised in Khasra No.347/1 measuring 0-14-17 hectares. He himself has submitted an application for regularization. The finding of fact recorded by both the authorities cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the orders passed by both the authorities below. The authorities below have correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bear..

Consequently, taking into consideration the over-all facts of the case,. Judge Stated that he would direct that the suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction and cancellation of gift deeds as well as permanent injunction bearing No. 147/2012 (Old No.201/2007) titled as Basudev v. Narendra & Ors pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan be disposed of within a period of eighteen months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. Adjournment for the mere asking should not be granted. When any request is made for an adjournment it should be only entertained on an application in writing with reasons set out. The trial court may thereupon adjourn the matter as warranted only for good reason/s.  The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 

Current standard rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month commencing 1st May 2014 will be paid by 10thof the following month. Deepmala Sharma- the landlord hereinafter shall be free to avail the benefits of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 qua revision o..

Current standard rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month commencing 1st May 2014 will be paid by 10thof the following month. Deepmala Sharma- the landlord hereinafter shall be free to avail the benefits of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 qua revision of rent in accordance with law. 

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 ..

It is the own case of the petitioners that there were 81 vacancies for selection to the post of AEN which had to be bifurcated in 70:30 ratio for the assessment period 01.06.2007 to 31.05.2009. On bifurcation, total vacancies of AEN came to be 57 against 70% quota, out of which 9 posts were meant for SC, 4 for ST and 44 were unreserved. However, a revised reservation calculation were proposed as per which the post meant for SC were found to be 6, for ST 3 and unreserved were 48. It is also not in dispute that 1 SC candidate, namely, Harbhajan Singh had qualified against general standards (General category) in the panel of 2003-2005 who had been litigating with the petitioners for his empanelment in the 2003-2005 in which he was successful and was promoted in the panel of 2003-2005 causing vacancy in the panel of 2007-2009 in the General category in which respondent No.1 has been ordered to be considered by the Tribunal being the senior most. We are not convinced with the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that on having been adjusted against the panel of 2003-2005 in the General category quota, Harbhajan Singh had carried the post in the said panel causing a reduction in the unreserved category to 47 which were otherwise 48 in number. 

In the light of the aforesaid observations, I hold that the plaintiffs have not been able to satisfy that they have got a prima facie good case or that balance of convenience is in their favour or that they will suffer an irreparable loss, accordi..

In the light of the aforesaid observations, I hold that the plaintiffs have not been able to satisfy that they have got a prima facie good case or that balance of convenience is in their favour or that they will suffer an irreparable loss, accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any blanket pre-telecast order against the defendants; however, keeping in view the guidelines of the NBSA, the defendants are directed to obtain the view of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in case they intend to televise any programme pertaining to plaintiff No.1 or his companies so that the said interview, comment or his side of the story is simultaneously reflected at the end of the said programme.

Allowed the application of plaintiff U/o 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section Show

Allowed the application of plaintiff U/o 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and restrain the defendant no. 1 along with its officials from disconnecting the supply of C.C. NO. 135/12, NOOR JAHAN VS. BSES (YPL) page 5 of 66 electricity at the suit property of the plaintiff passing through new electricity meter no. 14289632 installed at the suit property till the final disposal of this case on merits but with a condition that plaintiff shall deposit 70% (sixty five per cent ) of the impugned bill, which is reportedly to the extent of Rs. 2,14,662/- (rupees two lakhs, fourteen thousand, six hundred and sixty two), including late payment surcharge on actual theft bill in sum of Rs. 87,976 (rupees eighty seven thousand, nine hundred and seventy six only), as per record, to the defendant no. 1 within 30 ( thirty ) days from today and show the receipt of the payment of the same to this court on the next date of hearing. Such payment to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides to be decided later on by this court after inviting evidence from both the sides. It is further made clear that plaintiff shall complete necessary commercial formalities at her own cost and responsibility in order to have the interim protection in her favour to the above effect, if need be. If the plaintiff fails to make such payment within 30 days from today, then the interim protection given in her favour by this order shall stand automatically cancelled by virtue of this order. Nothing written/said in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of this case.Hence, the application of the plaintiff under discussion stands decided in view of the above order.

Court rejected all the contentions of the appellant, at the same time we modify the order of the High Court to the extent that there shall be fresh demarcation done at the site through Patwari. On the basis of said demarcation, if i..

Court rejected all the contentions of the appellant, at the same time we modify the order of the High Court to the extent that there shall be fresh demarcation done at the site through Patwari. On the basis of said demarcation, if it is found that in the revenue record 30 feet road exists, that area will be clearly demarcated and delineated, and thereafter the Scheme would be implemented. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from today. The appellant shall be associated in the exercise of demarcation. Once this demarcation, is done the parties shall abide by the same. Appeal disposed of in the aforesaid terms