Recent Judgement

[Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33883 of 2013] O R D E R Leave granted. 1. Unwrapping the events, which have led to the filing of the instant appeal, depict the following scenario: On 23.09.2007, the appellant after completion of his Goundi (working at building construction sites) work, […]

[Civil Appeal No. 9486 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26760 of 2013] A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Matter heard finally as counsel on either side, who were ready to argue the matter, made a specific request in this behalf. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated July 10, 2012 rendered

[Civil Appeal No. 5773 of 2009] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. Through memorandum dated 12.3.1990 it was alleged, that the appellant herein – A. Tajudeen, without any general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, had received an amount of Rs.8,24,900/- in two installments, at the behest of Abdul Hameed, a person resident

[Civil Appeal No. 4854 of 2009] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, the appellant before us, is a proprietorship concern. Mr. B.K. Garg is its sole proprietor. On 28.4.1995, M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders purchased one, six years’ National Savings Certificate (hereinafter referred to as, NSC) bearing number 6NS/06DD 387742, by investing a

[Civil Appeal No. 603 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 564 of 2009] Dipak Misra, J. 1. Rasheeda Khatoon, the predecessor-in-interest of present appellants, instituted regular suit No. 31 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, seeking recovery of possession from the original defendants. The case of original plaintiff before the trial Court was

[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.