1. Hirabai (d) Thr. Lrs. v. Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya (d) by Lrs. & Ors.
Civil Law - Suit for declaration of title over suit property and for permanent injunction - Trial court dismissed the suit and dismissal was upheld by first appellate court and High Court. Held, the concurrent findings recorded by courts below were binding on High Court as also on Apex Court. All these findings were recorded on proper appreciation of facts and law. Suit filed by plaintiff appears to collusive to avoid execution of decree. The sale of suit property was by Karta for legal necessity and for benefit of the family, hence it was binding on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to plead that the sale was not for said purpose. Hence the impugned order calls for no interference.
Case Number : C.A. No. 4282 of 2019 25-04-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 4282 of 2019 25-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sudhanshu S. Choudhari
Respondent's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
2. M/s Trimex Sands Pvt Limited v. Union of India
Incorrect / Wrong briefing - The High Court did not decide the writ petition on merits but disposed it of on the statement made by the Counsel for the Union of India, which was based on incorrect briefing made to him by the concerned official, it just and proper and in the interest of all the parties concerned that the writ petition is heard afresh and is disposed of on its merits in accordance with law by the High Court
Case Number : C.A. No. 4283 of 2019 25-04-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 4283 of 2019 25-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Aniruddha Deshmukh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
3. Rajan v. The Home Secretary Home Department of Tamil Nadu
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 432 and 433 - Remission of the Sentence - Whether the Central Government is a necessary party, as the request for premature release is in relation to offences under the Arms Act - Held, the sentence awarded to the petitioner in reference to offence under Section 3 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act having already been completed by the petitioner as it was to run concurrently with life imprisonment, even these offences cannot be reckoned for considering the representation made by the petitioner. Resultantly, there would be no need to consult the Central Government and, for the same reason, the presence of Central Government in this petition is not essential.
Case Number : W.P. (Crl. ) No. 321 of 2018 25-04-2019
Case Number : W.P. (Crl. ) No. 321 of 2018 25-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : K. Paari Vendhan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar