Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 69 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Ranbir Singh vs Dalbir Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2002

Munna Singh @ Shivaji Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 October, 2011

The Apex Court however in the case of Ranbir Singh (supra) held that even though the orders of the High Court setting aside the orders under Section 145(1) and 146(1) were unsustainable, yet in the circumstances of the case, the order of the High Court quashing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. were maintained leaving it open to the parties to approach the civil court for an appropriate interim order where the dispute was pending without being influenced by the findings recorded by the High Court. The emphasis therefore again was laid on the principle that where a civil proceeding has been initiated and the matter is pending between the parties, then the Magistrate should be slow in invoking the jurisdiction of attaching or taking into possession of a property involved in such a dispute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Dr.K.Nedunchezhian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ on 4 February, 2015

21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in other judgment reported in 2002 (2) crimes 24 - Ranbur Singh V. Dalbir Singh and others while defining the limited scope of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, categorically held that the court is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date. The court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of possession of the same.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

E.Thyagarajan vs Ravi on 7 July, 2015

10. Leaving alone on the point of jurisdiction, this Court has gone into the merits of the case also. In revision, this Court cannot go into the title as title can be only decided by the Civil Court. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700, Ranbir Singh vs. Dalbir Singh and others, wherein, in paragraph No.8, it was held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

Chander Shekher vs . Dalvir Singh on 16 May, 2012

This reason Suit No.13/11 Page No. 3/6 stated on behalf of the defendant appears to be absurd as the title of the present suit is Chander Shekher and others Vs. Dalbir Singh whereas the title of the above mentioned other suit is Than Singh Vs. Dalbir Singh and thus the title of the suit do not exactly match. It is further noted from the certified copy of the said suit filed by the plaintiff, that it was decided on 07/10/10. The defendant has not mentioned any date on which his counsel was applying a certified copy of the said suit and further no reasons have been mentioned for applying the certified copy of the said order after a long gap from the date of order particularly in view of the fact that the said suit was dismissed and the defendant had no occasion to appeal against the same. Moreover, it is further astonishing to note that the enquiry counter was able to tell to the counsel for the defendant the purpose and the next date fixed in the present suit. The said information regarding the purpose fixed can only be ascertained from the file. Thus the reason stated by the defendant regarding gaining knowledge about the pendency of the present suit is not sustainable and has no legs to stand.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sudha Gupta & Anr. vs The State & Ors. on 8 October, 2010

17. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the learned SDM has rightly issued the injunction order as respondent No.6 is the owner of the demised premises by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour by the previous owner, whereas the petitioners are claiming their right to the property on the basis of unregistered documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, Will and receipt, etc. which documents do not confer title upon them. I do not find any merit in W.P.(Crl.) 1028/2009 Page 13 of 15 this contention for the reason that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the SDM is mainly concerned with the possession of the property in dispute on the date of preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date and the court is not required to decide either the title of the property or right to possession of the same (reference be made to Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh (supra)).
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - A Bharihoke - Full Document

Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd vs Anisa Singh on 5 July, 2022

9. Ld. counsel for defendant/ applicant has argued that present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 as plaintiff in both suits is claiming relief based on same facts. Plaintiff has failed to obtain relief on its application under Order II Rule 2 and present suit will be barred as plaintiff failed to obtain leave of first court in respect of reliefs it has omitted in earlier suit. Plaintiff has not sought leave of first court to withdraw earlier suit under Order XXIII Rule (1)(3) CPC with liberty to file afresh, hence present suit is barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) CPC. Reliance is placed on Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh1, Deepa Dua v. Tejinder Kumar Muteneja2, Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh3, Vurimi Pullarao v. Vemari Vyankata Radharani4, Madan Lal Arora v. Shiv Kumar5. It is further argued that eviction is sought on basis of notice dated 28.06.2018, which was the basis of earlier suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Ramasamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

12. It is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh vs Dalbir Singh and Others (Crl.A.No.401 of 2002, dated 20.03.2002) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the Court, while dealing with a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is mainly concerned with the possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date; the Court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of possession of the same and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next