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

(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

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.

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