Wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR 2019God bless you all with great health, wealth and prospertywith warm regards Your’s Advocatemmmohan
The appellant had filed Suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is holding leasehold rights in the aforesaid shop and, therefore, he is a protected tenant. He had also claimed relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendant(s)(respondent(s) herein) from dispossessing the appellant(s) from the shop (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’).-… Read More Suit for declaration of tenancy rights and injunction – even though plaintiff failed to prove his case – being a licensee as proved is entitled for permanent injunction till he was dispossed through process of law
suit for declaration of title and injunction- the trial court decreed the suit with costs. However, the defendants have been given the right to grow Tulsi and pluck flowers in the suit land for performance of pooja. – High court also confirmed the same – Apex court held that The defendant has not set up… Read More No court can grant decree/relief infavour of the defendant without counter claim and without pleadings and without producing the documents , while granting decree in favour of the plaintiff as he prayed for
Or.6, rule 17 CPC- amendment of plaint adding for specific perfromance of agreement of sale in a bare suit for injuntion – both courts dismissed the same – The reasoning given by the courts below is that the amendment would be barred by limitation if one is to calculate the limitation from the date of… Read More in a suit for mere injunction – an amendement of plaint can be allowed for specific performance of agreement of sale if it is in time
suit for injunction-According to the appellant, there was said to be an attempt to forcibly dispossess them by the respondents and that is what drove them to file a suit for injunction.-The Trial Court granted the injunction but on appeal the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court. The High Court went… Read More Injunction can be granted as the appellant will not be dispossessed except in accordance with law or any other law.
No injunction when the plaintiff’s share is 6 pies and 3.125% in the entire suit property, and when the total undivided share of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs share is 49% . Injunction order – Trail court granted – Hight court affirmed – Apex court held that The original plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1, holds… Read More No injunction when the plaintiff’s share is 6 pies and 3.125% in the entire suit property, and when the total undivided share of the other co-sharers including the plaintiffs share is 49%
suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties set out in Schedules to the plaint.- The defendants stated that soon after the death of their father in the year 1944, there was a partition amongst the brothers and each of the brothers was enjoying agricultural lands separately and the house properties were also divided… Read More No need to disturb the partitioned properties while granting partition decree in respect of unpartitioned properties
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Reopening the evidence, Permission to file the petition listed documents, Recalling PW2 for further examination and Receiving additional chief affidavit of the said witness.-when the suit is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed the afore-stated four interlocutory applications for the purpose of adducing further oral and documentary evidence after… Read More Whether the reopen petition, recall petition , Receiving of additional chief affidavit petition, doucment petition can be allowed when filed at the time of the arguments ? -AP HIGH COURT
Indian Banks� Association was negotiating with the Officers� Association and a Joint Note had been entered into and was signed on 14.12.1999, with regard to periodical pay revision of the officers of the member Banks. Joint Note indicated the date of effect of scale of pay, dearness allowance and pension, as was magreed to be… Read More Whether the explanation [c] added in regulation 2[s] of regulations of 1995 ,in the month of January 2003 with retrospective effect is constitutionally valid?