Director & Anr. v. Khaja Zuhuruddin & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the
Provisions considered
- Enemy Property Act, 1968 ss. 1, 3, 18
Judgment
Cause title
M/s Sri Vinayaka Developers represented by its Director and another ..Appellants
AND Khaja Zuhuruddin and others ..Respondents
::
JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the appellants Sri M.S.Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for respondent No.4 to 6 Counsel for respondent No.7 Counsel for respondent Nos.8, 12 to 15, 17 and 18 Counsel for respondent No.16 Sri Venkataraghavulu Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General Government Pleader for Revenue Sri P.Sriraghuram
Operative part
18.1.2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This appeal is directed against order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8168 of 2006, whereby she quashed order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Government of India rejecting the application made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 18 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. After arguing the case for some time, Sri M.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants made a request that his clients may be permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to seek review of the order under challenge. Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 says that he does not have any objection. Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General says that he too does not have any objection. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to seek review of the order under challenge. As a sequel to dismissal of the main appeal as withdrawn, WAMP.No.24 of 2007 filed by the appellants for suspension of the order under challenge and WAMP.No.90 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for vacating the order of status quo passed on 5-1-2007 are disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
18.1.2007.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Enemy Property Act, 1968 — ss. 1, 3, 18.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.