REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6805 OF 2013 Delhi Development Authority … Appellant(s) Versus Bankmens Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s) With CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6803-6804 OF 2013 Delhi Development Authority … Appellant(s) Versus Safdarjung Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s) With CIVIL… Read More builder mafia = “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letters or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letters. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.” We are prima facie of the view that the builder mafia had a big hand in getting the Societies revived. Hence we hold that the very revival of the Societies is illegal and the memberships are not genuine and hence the appeals are allowed. However, there may be some members of the Societies who must have been duped by the promoters. Therefore, we direct the DDA to refund the money deposited to the Societies along with interest @10% p.a with effect from the date when the money was deposited with the DDA. The amount be paid within 2 months from today. The Societies shall in turn ensure that within 4 weeks thereafter the amount deposited by the members is returned to them along with the interest aforesaid. This will alleviate the hardship of genuine members.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4892-4893 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33363-33364 of 2016) Union of India …. Appellant Versus M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. …. Respondent J U D G M E N T A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration… Read More whether an intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of High Court at Calcutta can be maintained against an order passed by the Single Judge on an application for condonation of delay filed along with the petition (for setting aside an Arbitration Award) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)?= No appeal is provided against an order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction condoning the delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act as such. – While parting, we may take note of the order dated 7th November, 2016 passed by this Court directing the Appellant to deposit Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores) in the Registry of this Court and further to invest the same in a short term fixed deposit. We are informed that the Appellant has complied with the said order and deposited the amount in the Registry. That has been invested by the Registry. The said amount along with interest accrued thereon be transferred to an escrow account linked to the proceedings pending before the High Court at Calcutta being A.P. No.224 of 2016. The High Court will be free to pass appropriate directions regarding disbursement or investment of the said amount.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.119-120 OF 2014 SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. …. APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF A.P. …. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T… Read More The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the Trial Court. The Trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.The appellate court should always keep in mind that the Trial Court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The Trial Court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached—one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction—the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5655 OF 2007 Ayan Chatterjee ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Future Technology Foundation Inc. & Ors. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T… Read More Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and sought temporary injunction against the defendants (appellant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3) restraining them from interfering in respondent No. 1’s possession over the suit property etc.= TRAIL COURT GRANTED STATUS QUO – The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 whereas allowed in part the appeal filed by the plaintiff and accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court to the effect that the special officer be appointed to take possession of the suit property which would remain in his possession till the disposal of the Suit. It was also directed that this direction would be subject to the result of the Civil Suit.-The High Court then also invoked powers under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.) and directed the Registrar General of the High Court to lodge a complaint against the appellant and respondent No. 2 for their prosecution for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by fabricating some documents filed by them in the suit to secure the orders in their favour. -On 05.12.2005, this Court issued notice to the respondents only qua direction given by the High Court to the Registrar General of the High Court to lodge a complaint under Section 340 of the Crl.P.C. During the pendency of the S.L.P., this Court stayed the implementation of the impugned directions. In other words, this Court dismissed the special leave petition insofar as it relates to the main controversy decided by the High Court in relation to the grant of injunction and confined this appeal to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned directions quoted supra. -Needless to say, the Trial Court would decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded and observations made by the Trial Court in its order dated 06.04.2005 and also by the High Court in the impugned order.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.83 OF 2008 Dagadabai(Dead) by L.Rs. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N… Read More ADOPTION NOT PROVED – ADVERSE POSSESSION NOT PLEADED – LIABLE TO BE EVICTED = Non admission of title of plaintiff – failure to prove adoption and title – No plea of adverse possession property set up – It is a settled principle of law of adverse possession that the person, who claims title over the property on the strength of adverse possession and thereby wants the Court to divest the true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against the true owner of the property. It is equally well-settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants.- It is only thereafter and subject to proving other material conditions with the aid of adequate evidence on the issue of actual, peaceful, and uninterrupted continuous possession of the person over the suit property for more than 12 years to the exclusion of true owner with the element of hostility in asserting the rights of ownership to the knowledge of the true owner, a case of adverse possession can be held to be made out which, in turn, results in depriving the true owner of his ownership rights in the property and vests ownership rights of the property in the person who claims it. In this case, we find that the defendant did not admit the plaintiff’s ownership over the suit land and, therefore, the issue of adverse possession, in our opinion, could not have been tried successfully at the instance of the defendant as against the plaintiff. That apart, the defendant having claimed the ownership over the suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of Rustum and having failed to prove this ground, he was not entitled to claim the title by adverse possession against the plaintiff. In the light of this settled legal position, the plea taken by the defendant about the adoption for proving his ownership over the suit land as an heir of Rustum was rightly held against him. Fifth, the defendant having failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Rustum, had no option but to suffer the decree of dispossession from the suit land. It is a settled principle of Mohammadan Law that Mohammadan Law does not recognize adoption (see-Section 347 of Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law, 20th Edition page 430).
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5459 OF 2007 Velayudhan & Ors. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Mohammedkutty & Ors. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.… Read More Was it a suit for grant of permanent injunction simpliciter or a suit to seek a declaration of title with consequential relief of grant of permanent injunction in relation to the suit land? – The issue, in our view, was required to be examined by the High Court keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy(Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2008(4) SCC 594. It was, however, not done.-The suit being one for perpetual injunction, whether investigation into the question of title was necessary or called for? – Whether, in view of the evidence, including the Commissioner’s report, the Appellate Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellants had no possession?”
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. OF 2017 (arising out of S.L.P.(c) Nos. 16610-11 of 2015) M/s Akriti Land Con Pvt. Ltd. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Krishna Bhargava & Ors.etc.etc. .…Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T… Read More Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and sought temporary injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit property, dispossessing the plaintiff and making any construction over the suit property etc. during the pendency of the suit.- she being one of the daughters of Late Nandan Bhargava is entitled to claim her 1/6th share in the suit property and is also entitled to be placed in possession of her exclusive share by effecting partition amongst all the co-sharer by meets and bounds because Late Nandan Bhargava (her father) died intestate. The plaintiff has also questioned the legality of the sale made by the other co-sharers (legal representatives) in favour of the appellant.=The Trial Court vide order dated 10.04.2015 rejected the applications =The High Court by impugned order allowed the appeals and directed the parties to maintain status quo till final disposal of the suit.- While issuing notice in these appeals to the respondents, this Court on 08.06.2015 passed the following order: “Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Issue notice. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent no.1. As an interim measure, the effect and operation of the common impugned order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, shall remain stayed during the pendency of these petitions subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not transfer or create any third party rights in respect of thirty flats proposed to be constructed on the property in question. Further, the concerned trial court is directed to decide the suit pending between the parties as expeditiously as possible.” It is true that finding recorded while considering grant of injunction is always considered prima facie in nature and is confined to the disposal of such interlocutory proceedings. They do not influence the decision which is eventually rendered in the suit on merits as the same is rendered on the basis of evidence which is adduced in the suit. However, we feel that having regard to the issues involved in the suit and the nature of directions which we propose to pass, it is proper in this case not to record any categorical finding either way. It is, however, made clear that the interim order dated 08.06.2015 would also be subject to the result of the civil suits and depending upon the outcome of the civil suits, the Trial Court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order of its modification, setting aside or revocation as the case may be.