M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, K.LAKSHMAN
Rubina Syed Faizuddin – Appellant
Versus
Syed Hamza (Died as per LRs. ) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
1. The applicants in these applications are appellants in the CCCA No. 18 of 2013 and are also defendant Nos. 26 to 30 in O.S. No. 123 of 1997 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, out of which the said appeal arises.
2. I.A. No. 3 of 2019 is filed by them invoking Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for a mandatory injunction in their favor and against the respondents 27, 35, 37 and 38 directing the latter to forthwith remove their henchmen from items 2 and 3 of the decree schedule properties.
3. I.A. No. 5 of 2019 is filed by the applicants seeking police aid for removing the personnel/henchmen from these two items of property.
4. I.A. No. 4 of 2019 is filed by applicants invoking Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for an injunction restraining the respondents 34 to 38 and other respondents also from interfering with the peaceful possession of the applicants in relation to all the items mentioned in the decree schedule attached to the preliminary decree dated 24.09.2012 in O.S. No. 123 of 1997 pending the appeal.
5. Interim orders had been passed allowing these applications earlier by this Court on 16.10.2019, but the same were
Budh Ram and Others vs. Bansi and Others
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others
Hammad Ahmed vs. Abdul Majeed and Others
Jahuri Sah vs. Dwarika Prasad Jhunjhunwala
Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi
Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil
Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan and Others
Tanusree Basu and Others vs. Ishani Prasad Basu 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.