Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 50 and Order 22 Rule 4 – The revision petition challenges the Executing Court’s order, which accepted the decree holder’s memo to waive impleading the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors in an execution petition for recovery of vacant possession. The ejectment suit was initially filed against two tenants, with others later impleaded. A decree for possession was passed, and the tenants’ application under the City Tenants Protection Act was rejected.

The revision petitioners argued that despite the decree, the decree holders could not dispense with impleading the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtors, referencing Section 50 CPC and a Full Bench decision of the Court.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 156(3) – This case concerns a Criminal Revision petition filed against the dismissal of a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner alleged trespass, damage to property, and assault by respondents 2 to 6, claiming the police failed to register a case despite a complaint.

The respondents contended that the dispute was civil in nature, involving a pathway disagreement, with prior complaints and counter-complaints already registered. They also stated that the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia), 21B(1)(2), 23(3) – This revision petition was filed concerning H.M.O.P. No. 851 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Madurai, where the petitioner seeks dissolution of marriage from the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty.

The petitioner’s grievance stems from the perceived lack of expeditious handling of her matrimonial proceeding, initiated on July 3, 2023.

(Cadre Reallocation and Medical Hardship)

This case involves the cadre reallocation of an employee from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, governed by principles of state reorganization and DOPT guidelines on cadre allocation, especially concerning medical hardship.

The appellant, Rajendra Singh Bora, cleared a 1995 competitive exam (pre-Uttarakhand formation) and opted for a 'hill region' posting. His appointment was delayed due to a technicality, finally formalized in 2011 notionally from 1997. Subsequently, he sought reallocation to the 'hill cadre' (now Uttarakhand) based on his original option and his son's cognitive disability.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 27 – The appellants (original plaintiffs) sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Gwalior, claiming ancestral ownership and adverse possession, relying on an earlier decree against the State of MP. The respondent, Union of India, asserted ownership of the Morar Cantonment land since 1953.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for the appellants. However, the High Court reversed this, holding the prior decree was not binding on the Union of India, which was not a party.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7 – This case involves appeals against the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against M/s. Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited and M/s. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited. The CIRP was initiated based on a petition filed by 141 allottees of office spaces in a commercial complex developed by the companies, claiming failure to deliver possession of the units.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 99, Order 21 Rule 97, Section 2(10) – This case concerns a revision petition filed by an obstructor against the dismissal of his application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide tenant dispossessed during the execution of an eviction order against his predecessors. He argued that as a non-party to the original rent control proceedings, he was entitled to assert his rights under Order XXI Rule 99.

The respondent contended that the petitioner, having previously contested and lost an application for removal of obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97, fell within the definition of a “judgment debtor” under Section 2(10) of the CPC and was therefore barred from invoking Order XXI Rule 99.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX, Rule 4 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India – This revision petition was filed by the defendant challenging an ex parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to comply with Order XX, Rule 4 of the CPC by not providing findings regarding the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs. The petitioner contended that the ex parte decree was a nullity that could be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even after an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the decree.

The respondents argued that challenging a “non-speaking judgment” under Article 227 is not permissible.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96, Order 41 Rules 9 & 11, Section 122 – Appellate Side Rules, Madras High Court – Order II Rule 3 – The central issue revolves around the procedure for admitting first appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the Madras High Court. This hinges on whether the amendments to Order 41, Rules 9 and 11 of the CPC, which require appeals to be posted before the court for admission, override the existing practice under Order II, Rule 3 of the Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court, which allows the Deputy Registrar to issue notice forthwith after receiving appeals against original decrees.

The court emphasizes that the Appellate Side Rules, framed under Section 122 of the CPC, hold a superior position compared to the rules in the First Schedule of the Code. The court also refers to various judgements, particularly Malthesh Gudda Pooja v.

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 200, 202, 482 – Directing CBI Investigation – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 120B, 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 302, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 – The case involves a dispute over the death of K. Raghunath, with allegations of murder and forgery surrounding two conflicting wills. After initial police investigation and a subsequent SIT report deemed unsatisfactory, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct further investigation into the matter. Appellants challenged the CBI investigation, questioning the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and citing previous proceedings.