Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Arun Kumar Tiwari vs Smt. Deepa Sharma And Ors. on 15 February, 2006

Salik Mukhtar And 4 Others vs M/S M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others on 13 October, 2023

Even otherwise, the court does not find any substance with regard to the half-hearted challenge to the valuation of claim made and, in any case, irrespective of valuation of the claim, the suit would lie before the District Judge as per the provisions contained under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and would not change the forum, hence, the judgment in the case of Arun Kumar Tiwari (supra) does not help the appellants.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sharda vs Sh. Santosh Tewari on 16 November, 2015

The defendant admitted the order dated 06.10.2012 passed by Sh. Samar Vishal, in suit bearing no. 37/09, declaring possession of the defendant in the suit property. The said order has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/DX­1. Even, the order dated 20.04.2011 of the Court of Sh. Vikram, the then Ld. CJ, Delhi, allowing the defendant Sh. Santosh Tiwari to renovate the suit property on the basis of possession of the defendant has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/DX­4. Defendant also proved the joint statement of the plaintiff and her husband dated 02.01.2012 given by them in suit bearing no. 37/09 titled as "Santosh Tiwari Vs. Smt. Sharda & Ors." in the Court of Sh. Vikram, the then Ld. CJ, Delhi, whereby admitting possession of the defendant in the suit property. The said joint statement is Ex. PW1/DX­C, which is part of Ex. DW8/2. Thus, from the previous litigation as well as documents filed by the defendant, it is clear that it was defendant only, who had been in possession of the suit property all along and plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. Had the plaintiff been in possession of the suit property at any point of time, a single ID would have been made by the plaintiff from the address of the suit property. However, no documentary evidence in order to prove the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that a loan was Page 12 of 15 Smt. Sharda Vs. Sh. Santosh Tiwari CS No. 188/13/09 13 also taken by the defendant against some other property and not the suit property. The plaintiff has further failed to prove the title documents, on the basis of which she is claiming her ownership over the suit property since none of those documents are as per law and even otherwise, they are not registered in the office of Sub­Registrar and thus, did not have any legal validity. The plaintiff even failed to examine Oath Commissioner or Notary Public, who had attested so called title documents. Further, the documents relied upon by PW2, i.e., the complaints made before police authorities are not sufficient to prove ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property at any point of time.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mahrab And Anr. vs Shri Hullan Khan And 2 Others on 8 May, 2015

Other case rejied upon by the parties' counsel is reported in [2006 (24) LCD 920 :2006 (1) ARC 717] Arun Kumar Tiwari vs. Smt. Deepa Sharma and others. In the case of Deepa Sharma, a declaratory decree was sought by the plaintiff with the prayer that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 5 by declared as illegal, ineffective and inoperative. In such circumstances, the division bench held that where the relief of injunction is consequential to the relief of declaration, ad valorem court fee has to be paid on entire valuation of suit property and Article 17 of Schedule 2 of the Court Fees Act shall not be applicable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - K Murari - Full Document

Mayank Jain vs Smt. Shashi Jain And Others on 15 July, 2010

The dispute is covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the  case   of  Arun   Kumar   Tiwari   vs.   Smt.   Deepa   Sharma   &   others,  [2006(100) RD 427], wherein it has been held that whenever challenge is  made to the jurisdiction of the court as well as to the valuation of the suit  and  sufficiency of  the  court  fee  or to  the maintainability  of  the  suit,  the  proper procedure for the court is to first decide these issues and then to  decide the injunction application and other matters. In   view   of   above   law   laid   down   by   this   Court,   no   illegality   has   been  committed   by   the   court   below   in   proceeding   to   decide   the   issues   with  respect   to   the   valuation   of   the   suit   and   court   fees   before   deciding   the  temporary   injunction   application   as   such   the   impugned   orders   do   not  warrant any interference.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - K Murari - Full Document

Arvind Kumar And 2 Others vs Premnath And 6 Others on 10 February, 2021

The counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgement of this Court in the Case of Arun Kumar Tiwari vs. Smt. Deepa Sharma, 2006 (24) LCD 920 wherein this Court had observed that when the court fees has not been paid, the question of court fees should be decided along with injunction application. The said judgement has no relevance with the facts pleaded in the present application. It is well settled that the injunction cannot be kept pending as has been the facts in the present case for a period of more than two years.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document
1