[1/2, 17:57] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER XXI RULE 89 –

[1/2, 17:57] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER XXI RULE 89 –

2010 (1) SCJ 360

BANDA CHINNA SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS VS. THAILAM VISHWANATHA RAO AND ANOTHER

Property sold in executing proceedings – on appeal, execution proceedings stayed – application filed to set aside sale that the deposit made by appellant was less and application had been filed beyond the period of limitation – set aside petition dismissed and confirmed by Appellate Court – High Court found in favour of appellant for amount of deposit but upheld the order on the question of limitation – the period of stay will be excluded under Article 127 of the Limitation Act – Appeal allowed

ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2, SECTION 151 –

2010 (1) SCJ 821

JULIEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. SOURENDRA KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS

Trial Court rejected application for interim injunction in a suit for specific performance, praying not to encumber or change the character of the suit property – on appeal High Court granted injunction against respondents 1 to 8– subsequently as the property transferred to respondents 9 to 11 the injunction vacated – 9 to 11 added as parties to the suit and filed fresh application for injunction – added respondents sought rejection of plaint, which was dismissed and injunction granted – High Court set aside the order which partially rendered the suit infructuous – injunction granted and parties were directed to go for trial.

ORDER XLIII RULE 1 –

2010 (1) SCJ 724

JASWANT KAUR AND ANOTHER VS. SUBHASH PALIWAL AND OTHERS

Appeal before the High Court from Order remanding a case by Appellate Court is maintainable.
[1/4, 15:18] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER XXII RULE 5, SECTION 211 –

2010 (2) SCJ 152

SURESH KUMAR BANSAL VS. KRISHNA BANSAL AND ANOTHER

Determination of Legal representative under this order is only for conducting the legal proceedings – it will not operate as res judicata on the rival claims to be tried independently in the proceedings.

SECTION 20 –

2010 (2) SCJ 612

GODREJ SARA LEE LTD., VS. RECKITT BENCKISER AUSTRALIA PVT. LTDS., AND ANOTHER

Cause of action is the cancellation of registered design of the appellant in West Bengal – Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal – order set aside held Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction to entertain appeal.

SECTION 35 – B, ORDER XVII RULE 1 –

2010 (2) SCJ 621

MANOHAR SINGH VS. D.S. SHARMA AND ANOTHER

Non-payment of cost for adjournment to cross examine the witness present in Court – held suit cannot be dismissed for non payment of cost – only cross examination can be closed or further prosecution can be prohibited.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME