Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

D.M. BELGAMVALA versus TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES (P) LTD.

Decided
24 November 2010
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Hearing Adjourned

Citations

Official
[2010] 13 S.C.R. 1072 · 2010 INSC 808

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This is a typical case of a litigant trying to take this Court for a ride.

p. 1073, margin F

In this case, the landlord had filed an eviction peition against the petitioner-tenant which had been decreed by the courts below, including the High Court. The eviction was granted on the ground that the building in question is more than 100 years old and needed demolition and fresh construction. The Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13704 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against the order of the High Court was dismissed by this Court by order dated 14.5.2010 and the petitioner (tenant) was granted six months time from 14.5.2010 to vacate the premises in question subject to filing ususal undertaking before this Court. The petitioner had furnished the undertaking to vacate the premises in question as directed by this Court.

pp. 1073–1074, margin F

Despite this undertaking, the petitioner has not vacated, and instead he has filed this application on 12.11.2010 praying for a drection that the petitioner need not vacate the suit premises till the final orders passed in the Review Petition of

p. 1074, margin A

in the alternative grant stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the suit premises.

p. 1074, margin A

In our opinion, this application is a sheer abuse of the process of thE;! court.

p. 1074, margin C

Along with the application an order dated 18.06.2010 of the Commissioner, corporation of Chennai has been filed purporting to revoke the permission to demolish the property in question. We are of the opinion that the Commissioner, Corporaion of Chennai is hand-in-glove with the petitioner and

p. 1074, margin C

it is for this reason that he has passed this collussive and contemtuous order dated 18.06.2010 merely to get over our order dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.201.

p. 1074, margin C

Issue contempt of court notice to the Commissioner, Corporation of Channai as well as to the petitioner in this case to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court for trying to take this court for a ride and set at naught our order dated 14.5.2010.

p. 1074, margin E

We further direct that the petitioner be evicted from the

p. 1074, margin F

premises in question forthwith by using police force Ignoring the order of stay of evicicn which we are informed has been passed by he High Court. If the petitioner or anyone tries to obstruct this order, he should know now that he will definitely be sent to jail. There is a limit of tolerance by this Court and the petitioner has crossed that limit.

p. 1074, margin F

We are informed that the petitioner had, long after we dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.2010, approached the Madras High Court and obtained a stay of eviction. We are surprised that the Madras High Court has flouted the order of his Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 14.05.2010. This was not expected of the High Court. Judicial discipline requires that the High Courts should not try to override orders passed by this Court. Such defiant attitude of the High Courts will not be tolerated by this Court.

p. 1075, margin A

With these observations, the interlocutary application is dismissed.

p. 1075, margin A

Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court who will place it before the Chief Justice ··of the High Court. The Registrar General will send a report to this Court mentioning how and why a stay order was granted by the High Court despite our order dated 14.05.2010.

p. 1075, margin C

Contempt Petition No. 289 of 2010 in Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 13704/2010.

p. 1075, margin D

Contempt Petition is aken on board.

p. 1075, margin E

We are informed that this contempt petition in the Special Leave Petition (C.) No. 13704/2010 has been filed by he respondent herein. The, order passed in the interlocuory application above will also 'govern this contemp petition.

p. 1075, margin E

Issue notice.

p. 1075, margin F

List the contempt petition on 12.01.2011. R.P. Matter adjourned.

p. 1075, margin F