Judgments - Supreme Court of India
C.B.I Vs. SADHU RAM SINGLA & ORS.
The question which arises before us is no longer res integra i.e. whether FIR and the consequential proceedings alleging non-compoundable offences could be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the respondents-accused. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in Full Judgment
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI& ANR Vs. SATYA GYAN NIKETAN & ANR.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. Vs. SHAIK MAHIBULLA SHARIEF
EX. GNR LAXMANRAM POONIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
PARYAVARAN SURAKSHA SAMITI & ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.
MANUARA KHATUN & ORS. Vs. RAJESH KR. SINGH & ORS.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON LONDON BRANCH Vs. ZENITH INFOTECH LIMITED
JAGMAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
PRABHAKARA ADIGA Vs. GOWRI AND ORS
Singular question involved in the matter is executability of decree for permanent injunction against the legal representatives of judgment- debtor. It is crystal clear from a perusal of section 50(2) CPC that a decree for permanent injunction can be executed against the judgment debtor or his legal representatives. Normally personal action dies with person but this principle has application to limited kinds of causes of actions. In our considered opinion the Full Judgment
BHIKAN SK.NOOR MOHD Vs. MEHAMOODABEE SK.AFZAL & ORS.
JAYANTILAL CHIMANLAL PATEL Vs. VADILAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL
JITENDER ARORA & ORS. Vs. SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.
She has developed her personality and formed her opinion after considering all the attendant circumstances. Her intellectual characteristics are adequately developed. She is able to solve problems, think about her future and understands the long term effects of the decision which she has taken. We also find Full Judgment
MEHMOODA GULSHAN Vs. JAVAID HUSSAIN MUNGLOO
Whether the requirement of the landlord for own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of the family, in this case, the son, is the short question arising for consideration. The premises sought to be evicted is not held for the benefit of the son alone; but the whole family. It is for the own occupation of the landlord. It has been established in the facts of this case that the landlord was not happy and Full Judgment