Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.96 seconds)Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
The Apex
Court considered all its earlier decisions including the decision in the case of
Ramesh Kundanmal (supra) and in paragraph No.5 proceeded to observe as
under:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kaira Distt. Co-Op. Milk Producers ... on 14 November, 2002
In Union of India v.
Distt. Judge3 the Union of India who ultimately had to bear the burden of
payment of the compensation was held to be a necessary party under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC for determination of the compensation in respect of the ac-
quired land.
Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994
In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra5 similar
question was answered holding that the respondent was a necessary party.
(Emphasis added)
In paragraph 6 the Apex Court proceeded to observe as under:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.M.A. Hakeem, Chairman, Maharashtra ... vs U.P. Co-Operative Spinning Mills ... on 27 March, 2002
In the case of Herbertsons Ltd (supra) this Court reiterated the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kundanmal (supra).
M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996
In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aliji Momonji (supra), the
appellant before the Apex Court had filed a suit for injunction against Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay for restraining the Corporation from demolishing
a portion of the building. The respondents before the Apex Court applied under
Rule 10(2) of Order I of the said Code for impleadment on the ground that they
had direct interest in the property subject matter of the notice of demolition. The
trial Court allowed the application and the said order was confirmed by the High
Court and therefore the plaintiffs appealed before the Apex Court.
Herbertsons Ltd. vs Kishore Rajaram Chhabria And Ors. And ... on 24 March, 2000
He submitted that the presence of the 2nd respondents is not at all necessary for
answering the issues arising in the present suit. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner also placed reliance on another decision of this Court in the
case of Hebertsons Ltd Vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria & Ors [2000 (3)
Maharashtra Law Journal 550]. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the Sale Deed on which reliance is placed by the 2nd respondents
does not show that the 2nd respondents have any right, title, interest in respect of
the suit premises.
Adam A. Sorathia And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 11 April, 2001
12. Thus, what has been held by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of
Aliji Momonji (supra) and by this Court in the case of Adam A. Sorathia (supra) is
that if action of demolition of a building or a part thereof initiated by a Municipal
Corporation is challenged, the rights of the landlord of the building will be directly
affected and therefore such landlord would be a proper party though no relief has
been sought against him. Thus, if a third party is the owner of the property sought
to be demolished, such a third party has a direct and substantial interest
ig in as
much as in the event of its demolition, rights of such third party would be
materially affected.
1