S K SARMA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR VERMA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
September 17,2002
S.K.SARMA
Appellant
VERSUS
MAHESH KUMAR VERMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S.L. KAPOOR V. EMPEROR [REFERRED]UNION OF INDIA VS. B N PRASAD [REFERRED]
S THANAGAPPAN VS. P PADMAVATHY [REFERRED]
VASHU DEO VS. BALKISHAN [REFERRED]
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT EASTERN RLY ASANSOLE VS. SURESH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY [REFERRED]
ARJUN BABLOO TUKARAL VS. G V JAVALKAR [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
NAGENDRA NATH GOGOI VS. TENGAPANI TEA COMPANY LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2006-1-17] [REFERRED TO]Lavachandra Gaundalkar VS. Sitaram Atmaram Naik [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
PROMINENT HOTELS LTD VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NRUSINH SANSKRIT PATHSHALA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT KAUR VS. BAIJ NATH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-124] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SINGH & ORS. VS. URMILA DEVI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-365] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-487] [REFERRED TO]
RUSSEL PROPERTIES AND ESTATES VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION FOR VOLUNTARY ACTION VS. CHILD TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-377] [REFERRED TO]
SPARSH BUILDERS PVT. LTD VS. MAHARISHI AYURVEDA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI AND ORS. VS. LAXMAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-597] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI AND ORS. VS. LAXMAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-597] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADA BAI VS. NAVRATAN VYAS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. COL SATSANGIS KIRAN MEMORIAL AIPECCS EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-264] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Short question involved in this appeal is - whether the provisions of Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways Act") can be invoked for taking back possession of the premises which was given to its employee, upon his retirement on failure of railway administration to prove lease document in its favour
(3.)The High Court of Calcutta by judgment and order dated 10-10-2001 arrived at the conclusion that railway administration ought to have proved that the premises belonged to it, before invoking Section 138 of the Railways Act and as the lease agreement of the premises between railway administration and its owner is not proved, Section 138 of the Railways Act could not be invoked for evicting the respondent. That judgment is challenged by filing this appeal.
(2.)Short question involved in this appeal is - whether the provisions of Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways Act") can be invoked for taking back possession of the premises which was given to its employee, upon his retirement on failure of railway administration to prove lease document in its favour
(3.)The High Court of Calcutta by judgment and order dated 10-10-2001 arrived at the conclusion that railway administration ought to have proved that the premises belonged to it, before invoking Section 138 of the Railways Act and as the lease agreement of the premises between railway administration and its owner is not proved, Section 138 of the Railways Act could not be invoked for evicting the respondent. That judgment is challenged by filing this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.