D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, M.R.SHAH
Saurav Jain – Appellant
Versus
A. B. P. Design – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 February 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a first appeal1[First Appeal No. 411 of 2011] under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). On 18 October 2011, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad dismissed a suit2[Original Suit No. 602 of 2008] instituted by the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal by the first respondent and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, holding that the auction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (“MDA”) in respect of the land in dispute is null and void. The appellant is an auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA. MDA has been impleaded as the second respondent to these proceedings. Both the appellant and the second respondent have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent over the land.
Facts
2. The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad claiming to be a “transferable owner and culti
Ritesh Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors.
S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore
Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji
Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Port of Mumbai
Bharat Kala Bhandar (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Committee, Dhamangaon
Vasant Kumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma
Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
T. Arivandandam v. T.V Satyapal
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jala
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.