admin

[Civil Appeal No.4227 of 2003] VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. A maze of facts and events, and a labyrinth of legal conundrums confront us in the course of the determination of this Appeal. Essentially, it is the ambit and sweep of the principle of res judicata that is at the centre of controversy. Additionally, Order II

[Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition Nos.3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008. 2. The main question raised in these appeals is whether

[Civil Appeal Nos. 1812-1815 of 2010] RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2010 arising from the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Orissa in F.A.No.10 of 2001 affirming the decree dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court may be conveniently treated as the main appeal

[Civil Appeal No. 9387 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19835 of 2010] PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta whereby said Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has allowed the application

[Civil Appeal No. 6197 of 2010] RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. The substituted appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) are the legal heirs of the plaintiff who had died during the pendency of the present appeal. The respondents 1 and 2 (Defendants 1 and 2) are the brothers of the deceased plaintiff whereas respondent Nos.

[Civil Appeal No. 3008-3009 of 2010] [Civil Appeal No. 4580 of 2010] RANJAN GOGOI, J. The controversy in the present appeals arises out of the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner, a housing society, to Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) under the relevant Development Control Regulations (DCR) i.e. N-2.4 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning

[Civil Appeal No. 9378 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 37274/2012] O R D E R R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, short question falling for consideration is whether the appellant be granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords. 3. Appellant is a tenant in

[Civil Appeal No. 9379 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.33798/2012] M/s. R.S. Labour and TPT. Contractor Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 9380 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3928/2013] R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. These appeals arise out of common order of the Punjab and