Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
Kamal S/O Rambalak Verma And Another vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. ... on 19 December, 2023
cites
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
In
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal's case [supra], this
Court had pointed out in para 18 of the judgment
that the notice did not relate to the structure but to
two chattels. Original lessee from the landlord had
no direct interest in that property. Under these
circumstances, it was held that the second
respondent has no direct interest in the subject
matter of the litigation and the addition thereof
would result in causing serious prejudice to the
appellant and the substitution or the addition of a
new cause of action would only widen the issue
which was required to be adjudicated and settled, It
is true, as pointed out by Shri Nariman that in para
14, this Court in that case had pointed out that
what makes a person a necessary party is not
merely that he has relevant evidence to give on
some of the questions involved; that would only
make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that
he has an interest in the correct solution of some
question involved and has thought of relevant
arguments to advance. The only reason which
makes it necessary to make a person a party to an
action is that he should be bound by the result of
the action and the question to be settled, therefore,
must be a question in the action which cannot be
effectually and completely settled unless he is a
party. The line has been drawn on a wider
construction of the rule between the direct interest
KHUNTE
17-WP-8148.23-J-Judgment 16/17
or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is
not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into
the wider question whether witness can be a proper
and necessary party when the witness has a
commercial interest.
M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996
16. The issue, in my considered opinion, is covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aliji Momonji & Co.
(supra) in which, in a similar circumstance, where the notice
issued by the Municipal Corporation for demolition of the building
was in question, in a suit filed by the lessee against the said notice
of demolition, this is what the Court had to say -
New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993
This Court in New Redbank
Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kumkum Mittal & Ors. (1994)
1 SCC 402 has pointed out that respondent 11 who
filed a suit for specific performance in the High
Court was sought to come on record in the suit in
which he had no direct interest in the pending
matter. Under those circumstances, this Court had
held that respondent 11 was neither necessary nor
proper party in the lease-hold interest involved in
the suit.
Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 9 December, 2016
Deju Somaya Salian
(supra), also relies upon Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Sharifi (supra).
In view of the factual position discussed above, I therefore, do not
find that these judgments are of any assistance to the learned
counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in their challenge to the
impugned order, which permits impleadment.
Bihar State Electricity Board vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 21 February, 1994
In Bihar State Electricity Board vs
State of Bihar & Ors. (199) 4 Supp. 3 SCC 743 the
same question was also reiterated and it was held
that the Electricity Board was a person interested
and also a necessary party.
Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994
In Anil Kr.Singh vs.
Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147 similar question
was answered holding that the respondent was a
necessary party."
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs District Judge, Udhampur And Ors. on 5 April, 1994
In Union of India & Anr. vs. District Judge
Udhampur & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 737 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
acquired land.
Mrs. Sulbha Devendra Kokate vs Mrs. Surekha Kokate And Ors on 30 March, 2021
In Sulbha
Devendra Kokate (supra), the rights available to the owner of the
KHUNTE
17-WP-8148.23-J-Judgment 11/17
property, who has received the notice for demolition of the same
from the Planning Authority have not been considered.
Sudhamayee Pattnaik vs Bibhu Prasad Sahoo on 16 September, 2022
14. Sudhamayee Pattnaik (supra) was a case in which in a
suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of
possession impleadment was sought of subsequent purchasers as
defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs had illegally and
unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land in their
favour. Relying upon the principle of dominus litis, it was held that
they need not be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the
plaintiff. This, however, was stated to be at the risk of the plaintiff
that apart since they were subsequent purchasers during the
pendency of the litigation of the portions of the suit property, they
would be bound by the principle of lis pendens.