KRISHNA MURARI, PRATYUSH KUMAR
Sayed Shahabuddin – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev – Respondent
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.2015 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Gorakhpur in O.S. No.963 of 2014, Sayed Shahabuddin Vs. Rajeev and others, whereby application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred as “appellant”) was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has contended that the appellant is Bhoomidhar in possession of plot nos.83 & 85, construction of his dwelling house is going on, defendants/respondents (hereinafter referred as “respondents”) with a view to grabbing the property are creating obstruction and claiming that they would make nurses’ hostel and doctors’ residences over the land of the appellant. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17147 of 2009 this court has passed interim order, which is still operative, but the respondents are disobeying the order. When the appellant filed a suit before the court below on the strength of order dated 31.3.2009, application for temporary injunction was illegally rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits further that in favour of the appellant prima facie cas
Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others
State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U.Karmachari Sanstha
Naval Shankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others
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.