BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. vs NIRMALA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 2089

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.M.LODHA
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NIRMALA – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.F. Nariman, Sr. adv. Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. adv. Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Adv. in CA No. 708/08 Mr. Shyam Divam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parijat Sinha,Adv. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Arti Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.L. Vishwanathan Iyer, Sr. adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. A. Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Chawla, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, Sr. adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Manishankar, Adv.
Mr. Awanish Sinha, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. adv. Mr. K. Swami, adv. Mrs. Prabha Swami, Adv. in Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. adv. Mr. S. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Adv.

ORDER :

C.A. No. 5903/2006

Application for deletion of the name of respondent No. 1 is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

Let the index be corrected accordingly.

The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the matter remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs.

C.A. Nos. 1257/22007, 1925/2007 and 708/2008

In view of the order passed in C.A. No.5903/2006 the impugned judgments and orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court.

ORDER

C.A. NO. 5903/2006

1. Application for deletion of the name of respondent No. 1 is allowed at the risk of the appellant. Let the index be corrected accordingly.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2005 of the High Court of Madras. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.

3. Initially a lease was granted in favour of the appellant for a period of 10 years commencing from 1.9.1959 which was extended for a further period of 10 years i.e. till 30.8.1979. In view of the provisions of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 2089

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.M.LODHABHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – AppellantVersusNIRMALA – Respondent

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.M.LODHA
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
NIRMALA – Respondent