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

R. V ARADARAJAN versus THIRUMANGAI NAIDU AND ORS.

Decided
5 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 94 · 1997 INSC 481

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 94, margin E

Notice on the limited question of compensation to the respondents in respect of the building in question, was issued on August 6, 1996, on the premise that the appellant himself was in possession of the building. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the appellant has let out the building to one Jasmirie Electricals on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000 and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the premises. In the rejoinder, it is admitted by the appellant in paragraph 8 which reads as under:

p. 94, margin F

"It is true that 1 had let out to one Jasmine Electricals, but that is only from 1993 and not earlier. It is totally incorrect to state that I have been realising the rental income from the property since

pp. 94–95, margin G

1968."

p. 95, margin A

The admission thereby that he has let out the premises gets proved. One Mohd. Rafeeq filed O.S. No. 6/97 in the Court of the District Munsif of Cuddalore for injunction against the owner. Therein, he stated that he entered into an agreement of lease on March 11, 1987. Further fresh deed was executed on _April 30, 1990. He claimed injunction on the basis of the directions issued by this Court. Thus it could be seen that the appellant has suppressed thes'e material facts before getting the notice issued. Notice is accordingly withdrawn.

p. 95, margin A

The appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000 payable by the appellant to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within 30 days from today. In case he does not pay the costs, the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is at liberty to have this order executed as a decree. R.P . Appeal dismissed.

p. 95, margin C