Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Ans. CS (OS) No.894/2008.

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora (1999) 78 (1999) DLT 285.

Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 592.
Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries (2017) 2019 SCC Online SC 1587.
Kharak Singh v. State of UP 1963 AIR 1295.
Karthick Theodore v. State of Madras(2021) 5 CTC 668.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh1972 SCR (3) 835.
Int

Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 2/19, Advocate General’s Opinion
in Case C-507/17.
5Google vs. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) C-507/17, Google
vs. CNIL, 2019 EUR-Lex CELEX No. 62017CJ0507.
a) The fact has wrongly been stated in the court below that the fire was broke open by the
Petitioner to throw her out of the house. It is relevant to state that it is the Respondent
who had been involved in the mischevious act of breaking fire in the house intentionally
and for which the Police report was also made by the mother in law. Further Smt Shalu
Sehgal had also filed various Complaint conserning the breaking of fire against the
Respondent and Mr S C Suri. The Complaint dated 26/11/2017 was filed before SHO,
P.S. Jagatpuri, Delhi, Complaint dated 03/01/2018 was filed before ACP, P.S. Jagatpuri,
Delhi and Complaint was further filed dated 22/01/2018 before the SHO, P.S. Jagatpuri,
Delhi. On no action the application under Section 156(3) was moved for lodging of FIR
before the Court of CMM, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi which is still
subjudice. Complaint was further filed vide DD No. 22B, dated 13.05.2017 by Smt
Sudesh Rani before SHO, P.S. Jagatpuri, Delhi. Further Complaint was filed vide DD No.
16A dated 18.09.2017 before the P.S. SHO, P.S. Jagatpuri, Delhi. Hence on account of
malicious way of movement she is also not entitled for seeking benefit of shared
household.
b) Further a Complaint vide DD No. 40B dated 14/10/2016 was filed by Smt Sudesh Rani
Verma conserning the mental and physical harassment at the hands of the Respondent
during her stay in the house before the SHO, P.S. Jagatpuri, Delhi.
c) That further a Complaint's dated 22.09.2017, 18.09.2017 and 13.05.2017 were filed by
Smt Sudesh Rani Verma against Respondent and her father before SHO, P.S. Jagatpuri,
Delhi on account of fire being broke out at the residential place in entirety.
d) Further after the demise of the mother in law, the property now belongs to the sister in
law who has taken complete possession and the Petitioner is also not staying there
therefore the relief prayed as on date is also not sustainable. Documentary evidence was
filed before the Appellate Court to prove that there was no earning of the husband from
the property which was depicted to be property of husband and earning being made on
the said property. The Bank statement of the Account of Petitioner was filed before the
Appellate Court.