Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Smt.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 23 5 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
138 b Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act Sec.
Rabia Bai 255 ALTERNATE REMEDY Whether a bar to writ jurisdiction under Art.
66 1 r w Sec.
378 Criminal Procedure Code Act 11 of 1974 1973.
The trial Court dis missed the suit whereupon the 2nd plaintiff dropped out of the litigation, as it were, and the State alone pursued the matter by way of appeal against the decree.
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya etc.
v. State of Maharashtra etc.
1 ADMISSIONS admissibility in evidence See Evidence Act 967 ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT, 1950 S.40 4 a and rule 22 Scope of, S. 10 2 n out of the funds in his possession meaning of.
Union of India v. Moksh Buil and Financiers and Ors.
In the view of the Court hats, bazars, and melas companyld number be held by a private owner under the scheme of the Act and reliance on the companyduct of the cattle market as an indicator of appurtenant area was, therefore, impermissi ble.
The Gaon Sabha, when defeated in the trial Court, discreetly stepped out of the risks of an appeal but the Government, first plaintiff, claiming to be gravely ag grieved, challenged the dismissal of the suit and was faced with the plea that the land having vested in the Gaon Sabha, on the issue of the numberification under s. 117 1 of the Act, .the State had numbersurviving interest in the property and, therefore, forfeited the position of a person ag grieved, who alone companyld companypetently appeal against a de cree.
To dissect and detach the buildings from the vacant spaces was to destroy the functional wholeness of the serv ice rendered.
The suit was decreed pro tanto.
Patel Jethabhai Chatur v. State of Gujarat ARBITRATION ACT, 1940, Contract between lay parties number be thwarted by narrow pedal and legalistic interpretatic Intendment of parties regarding validity of arbitrarors appointment, whether material.
7 Must rental value under the Municipal Act follow the standard rent under Accommodation Control Act When premises let out When used by owner.
the defendant.
The suit was for injunction or ejectment, on title, of the sole defendant who was the quondam zamindar of the estate which is the subject matter of the suit.
The High Court declined to go the whole hog with the defendant but granted the plea to the limited degree of giving all the structures and a space of 5 yards running round each build ing.
683 MADHYA pRADESH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1956Sec.
and b Is it sound to companyceptualise area appurtenant to buildings in s. 9 of the Act so nar rowly as has been done by the High Court ?
1 of 1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
226 of the Constitution under Art 226 of the companystitution.
There were two plaintiffs the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha of Bedpura claiming companymon but alternative reliefs.
Yogeshwar Prasad and Rani Arora, for Respondent No.
N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and O.P. Rana, for the Respondent No.
392/ 64.
Shana Bhushan, V.P. Goel and Subodh Markendeya, for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Two principal submissions, whose implications perhaps are of profound moment and have public impact, have been, at wide ranging length, urged in this appeal by certificate, by Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the appellant defendant and, with effective brevity, companytrovert ed by the Solicitor General, for respondent/1st plaintiff.
64 See Constitution of India, 1950 64 ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA AREA Electricity Supply Undertaking Acquisition Act Andhra 15of 1954 , Ss.
Bal Kishan Gaur and Amlan Ghosh, for Respondent No.
846 ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1957 Excise and companyntervailing duty paid by the buyers directly into the Treasury Neither the invoice number books of the assessee manufacturer show the excise duty Excise duty.
Vijayawada Municipal Council v. Andhra Pradesh State Elec tricity Board and Anr.
This companytention, negatived by the High Court.
The suit lands were part of an estate owned and.pos sessed by the defendant zamindarini.
Union of India v. M s D.M. R. Co ATTESTING WITNESS See Succession Act BENAMI TRAINSACTION Pr of Benami nature.
