(ii) NOMINAL-INDEX Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd. v. Manohar Nirody........................ 662 VOLUME-1, PART-II FEBRUARY, 2011 Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner & Ors. v. Jaswinder Singh & Ors. .................................................................... 668 Pages Smt. Subhadra & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority.......................... 689 Pallavi @ Pallavi Chandra v. CBSE and Ors. ........................................... 459 Mr. Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies Pvt. Ltd. .............................. 700 Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar & Anr. v. Union Public Service Commission & Anr. ........................................................................... 468 Tikka Shatrujit Singh & Others v. Brig. Sukhjit Singh & Another .......... 704 Inspiration v. The National Trust & Anr. ................................................ 513 Shri Ashok Babu v. Shri Puran Mal ......................................................... 786 Sh. Rahul Kathuria v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Anr. ....... 527 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh Tempo Service (Carrier) .................................................................... 801 Kewal Kishan v. M/s. Khurana Kaj House ............................................... 543 Union of India & Another v. Ramesh Chand ........................................... 822 All India Motor Union Congress v. Bhai Trilochan Singh & Ors. ........... 549 Union of India Ors. v. V Pitchandi ........................................................... 835 Union of India v. R.S. Khan ..................................................................... 555 Baljit Singh v. Thakaria ............................................................................. 563 Sh. Sukhanshu Singh v. Delhi Technological University & Ors. ............ 572 Raj Singh Gehlot v. Pardiam Exports Pvt. Ltd. ....................................... 582 Sh. Kapil Mahajan v. The State ................................................................ 592 Pearey Lal Bhawan Association v. M/s. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...... 604 Daljit Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation .................................... 620 Mrs. Sarabjit Singh v. Mr. Gurinder Singh Sandhu & Bros. ................... 624 Suresh Chand Mathur v. Harish Chand Mathur ....................................... 632 M/s. Sineximco PTE. Ltd. v. M/s. Dinesh International Pvt. Ltd. .......... 648 (i) (iv) NOMINAL-INDEX VOLUME-I, PART-II Theft—Does not amount to Act of God—Only exceptions FEBRUARY, 2011 being Act of God, Act of State's enemies or special contract between carrier and customer—Here even alleged theft of CARRIERS ACT, 1865—Section 10—Plaintiff No.1 an insurance goods does not stand established—Hence issue decided against company—Plaintiff No.2 a company which entered into Defendant. contract with Defendant—Defendant a company in the transport/carrier field—Plaintiff No. 2 entered into contract M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh with Defendant for delivery of ICs and capacitors— Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 Consignment not delivered to Plaintiff No. 2—Defendant claims that goods were stolen on the way—Hence not liable Subrogation of rights of Plaintiff No. 2—Plaintiff No. 1 granted to pay—Plaintiff No. 2 authorises Plaintiff No. 1 to file instant full power to use all lawful means to recover damages— suit for recovery of value of goods—Hence instant suit— Plaintiff No.1 authorised to sue in name of Plaintiff No.2— Held—Adequate court fee has been paid—Suit not barred by Stamp papers purchased in Delhi—Attested by witness Section 10 of Carriers Act, 1865—Carrier duly informed of residing in Delhi—Notary also from Delhi—No merit that claim of loss of goods—Sufficient notice has been given. documents were executed in Rohtak and attested at New Delhi—Plaintiff No. 2 has not filed any suit for recovery of M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh compensation for loss of good. Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh — Section 3—Liability of carrier limited to Rs. 100—Said Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 limitation only applicable to goods described in Schedule of the Act—Hence Section 3 not applicable. Subrogation and Assignment—Subrogation can be enjoyed by insurer as soon as payment is made—Assignment requires M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh agreement that rights of assured shall be assigned to insurer— Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 Enforcement of rights of subrogation must be in name of assured—Here, Plaintiff No. 2 has also been joined in suit— Main plea that goods were stolen, hence no negligence on part Letters of Subrogation also stipulate assignment and transfer of carrier—Reliance placed on ratio in Patel Roadways case— of actionable rights, title and interest—Legal proposition is Liability of carrier in India is like that of an insurer—It is settled vide ratio in Economic Transport Organisation's case— absolute liability subject to Act of God and special contract Insurer cannot maintain complaint in its own name even if between carrier and customer—Not necessary for plaintiff to such right traced to terms of a letter of subrogation-cum- establish negligence. assignment executed by assured. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Mukesh Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 Tempo Service (Carrier) ................................................. 801 (iii) (v) (vi) CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908—Section 100 & 11— — Order VII Rule 11—Grounds for rejection of plaint—Plaintiff Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7243.55 four daughters of one Late Rajender Vikram Singh— as arrears of rent against nine defendants—Trial Judge passed Defendant no.1 to 5 successors of Late Jaswant Singh brother a decree of Rs. 7243.55 against defendant no. 7 only—A new of Late Rajender Vikram Singh—Suit filed for the partition of tenancy was created in favour of defendant no.7 in August, two properties, stating first property was purchased by Late 1964—The first appellate court modified the judgment—The Rajender Vikram Singh and second was joint property with tenancy of defendant no. 7 was created with effect from brother Late Jaswant Singh—Defendant no.1 contested the 1.9.1963 liability of defendants no. 1 to 7 is joint and several— suit inter-alia on the ground that the said properties were Second Appeal—Appellant contended that finding in suit no. bequeathed to him by a Will by Late Rajender Vikram Singh— 159/1980 had become final and binding and could not have Defendant no.1 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 inter been reopened by first appellate court while deciding the same alia on the ground that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of issue between the same parties in the appeal arising of suit parties; documents not filed by the plaintiff despite an order no. 467/1979—Held—By applying the ratio of the judgment under Order VII Rule 4 CPC; suit barred by limitation, there in Premier Tyres Limited (supra) it is clear that judgment is a defective verification of plaint, filing of affidavit which is rendered in suit No. 159/1980 had attained finality as no appeal neither signed nor attested; thus cannot be taken cognizance had been filed against it—The findings of said judgment could of; and Power of Attorney on the basis of suit filed not not have been reversed by first appellate court in its impugned attested—Held, defendant must adduce evidence to show how judgment while considering and adjudicating upon the same mis-joinder of parties has caused serious prejudice or will issues which already stood finally decided vide the judgment prevent Court from giving complete relief—Hence cannot rendered in this suit No. 159/1980—The findings in suit No. constitute ground for summary rejection of plaint—Non filing 159/1980 had attained a finality and were binding; they could of documents cannot be ground for summary rejection of not be re-agitated—The impugned judgment set aside—Appeal plaint—Plaintiff does so at his own peril—Defendants failed allowed. to show how suit barred by limitation—Cause of action in present case is continuing one and within period of limitation— All India Motor Union Congress v. Bhai Omission to verify or defective verification can be regularized Trilochan Singh & Ors. .................................................. 549 at later stage—Lack of authority, defective verification or even absence of affidavit are irregularities which can be cured — Order XXXIX—Temporary Injunctions—Single Judge fully during trial—Law of procedure not to be used to deny relief empowered to pass whatever orders considered expedient— on technical grounds—Therefore, application under Order VII Directions to erect partition were to be passed de hors disposal Rule 11 CPC completely misplaced and dismissed. of Contempt Petition—Such directions could be severed from Impugned Order—Appropriate course to remand case back Mrigendra Pritam Vikramsingh Steiner & Ors. v. to Single Judge who had passed Impugned Order. Jaswinder Singh & Ors. ................................................. 668 Raj Singh Gehlot v. Pardiam Exports Pvt. Ltd. ........... 582 — Order VIII Rule r/w Section 151—Extension of time for filing (vii) (viii)