MOHIT S.SHAH, M.S.SONAK
Nitin Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Dinyar Pheroz Dubash – Respondent
M.S.Sonak, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 October 2013 in Chamber Summons No.2087 of 2011 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 declining the appellants (original plaintiffs) leave to implead subsequent purchaser of the suit property and for consequential amendments to the plaint.
2. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 (subsequent purchaser), Mr. Ramchandran N. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (original defendant Nos.1 to 3) and Ms. Usha R. Tiwari for respondent No.4 (original defendant No.4). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up not merely this appeal, but also Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 (Motion seeking interim reliefs in the Suit), for final hearing and disposal.
3. For the purposes of present appeal, the parties shall be referred to by their descriptions in the trial court, i.e., the appellants shall be referred to as the plaintiffs, respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the defendants and respondent No.5 as the ‘subsequent purchaser’, for the sake of convenience.
4. By four separate agreements dated 2 January 2014, def
Bhup Narain Singh V. Gokul Chand Mahton
R.K.Mohaammed Ubadullah Vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) by L.Rs.
National Textile Corporation Limited v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & ors.
Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & anr.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & ors vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.