Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Sita Kashyap & Anothers vs Harbans Kashyap And Others on 18 March, 2011

Neety Gupta vs Usha Gupta & Ors on 29 October, 2018

14. Similar view has been expressed by a single Judge of this Court in Sita Kashyap & Anr. vs. Harbans Kashyap & Ors, (supra), which decision also refers to several other judgments including a judgment of the Madras High Court in Gnanaprakasa Mudalier & Ors vs. B. Anandathanadavan & Ors, 1999 (2) CTC 6, a judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Azizabi vs. Fatima Biand & Ors, 1977 (1) Andhra WR 136 and a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Indradeo Prasad Singh & Anr vs. Sheonath Prasad Singh & Ors AIR 1980 Patna 201.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Kishan Chand Das And Ors. vs Kuoni Travel (India) Ltd. on 22 November, 2022

30. This Order was challenged before the Division Bench vide FAO (OS) 31/2015 which was decided on 02nd September, 2016. The plaintiff relied upon the judgments namely Atrabannessa Bibi vs. Safatullah Mia AIR 1916 Calcutta 645, Ramaprasada Rao vs. Subbaramaiah AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 647, Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak 2004 3 SCC 376, Ghantesher Ghosh vs. Madan Mohan Ghosh 1996 11 SCC 446, Kapila Bai vs. H.S. Madhava Rao AIR 1957 Mysore 71, Y. Laxmi Prasannam vs. Y. Narasayya AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 81, Lakanam Venkata Raman Rao vs. Ponnamanda Alivelamma 2010 (3) ALT 233, Uma Devi vs. Shivraj Krishan Gupta 2015 (148) DRJ 455, K. Venkata Subbaiya vs. K. Veeraiyya AIR 1955 Andhra Pradesh 172, Girdhari Lal vs. Gaj Nand ILR 1974 Delhi 864 (DB), Govind Ram vs. Ganesh Ram AIR 1979 Allahabad 122, V.P. Hashumal vs. Sri Bombay Halwa House (1983) ILR 1 Madras 213, Neety Gupta vs. Usha Gupta 2019 (173) DRJ 646 (DB), K.P. Nalla Goundar vs. P. Ramaswamy 1979-2 ILR (Madras) 62, Mohhapti Nageswara Sastry vs. N.L. Narasimha Rao 1983 (1) APLJ 231, Sita Kashyap vs. Harbans Kashyap 2011 (123) DRJ 52.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

Rajinder Kaur Thro Lr Usha vs Gurbhajan Kaur Thrugh Lrs. Upinder Kaur ... on 5 April, 2018

Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.6076-2015 has vehemently contended that since other shareholders were in possession of share more than their share, therefore, they are liable for rendition of accounts and the judgment passed by the trial Court was correct and the lower appellate Court erred in reversing the findings qua defendant nos.15 9 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2018 07:13:45 ::: RSA- 6076-2015 (O&M) 10 to 19. Learned counsel has referred to the authority of Delhi High Court in Sita Kashyap and another vs. Harbans Kashyap and others, 2012(7) RCR (Civil) 3050, wherein it was held that when one of the co-owners has been deriving some profit by way of rent etc. or is in possession of a portion disproportionate to his share in the property subject matter of the partition, it becomes duty of the Court to adjust the equities by directing appropriate division of profits, if any, earned from the property. Reliance has been placed on the following observations of Delhi High Court:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K Singh - Full Document

Dr Pradnya Nagar & Anr vs Sh.Rohit Nagar & Ors on 10 September, 2015

vii) In Sita Kashyap & Another Vs. Harbans Kashyap &Ors., 183 (2011) DLT 47 it was a suit for partition amongst co-owners and CS (OS) No.2022/2009 Page 26 of 35 it was held that - "In my view, since it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct appropriate division/apportionment not only of the common immovable property but also of the profits earned/mesne profits which accrues from that immovable property, even if no application for grant of profits is pending at the time when the final decree is passed, would not be material when suit continues to be pending before Court for one reason or the other."
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Hitesh Kakkar vs Sanjay Kumar Kakkar And Ors on 21 November, 2024

10. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sita Kashyap and Anr. v. Harbans Kashyap and Ors.- 2011 (123) DRJ 52 in a suit for partition amongst co-owners held that "In my view, since it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct appropriate division/ apportionment not only of the common immovable property but also of the profits earned/ mesne profits which accrues from that immovable property, even if no application for grant of profits is pending at the time when the final decree is passed, would not be material when suit continues to be pending before Court for one reason or the other." The Hon'ble High Court also held in Para No. 21 of its judgment which is mentioned as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhu Sharma vs Laxmi Devi on 25 March, 2025

c). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sita Kashyap and Anr. v. Harbans Kashyap and Ors.- 2011 (123) DRJ 52 in a suit for partition amongst co-owners held that "In my view, since it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct appropriate division/ apportionment not only of the common immovable property but also of the profits earned/ mesne profits which accrues from that immovable property, even if no application for grant of profits is pending at the time when the final decree is passed, would not be material when suit continues to be pending before Court for one reason or the other."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prabhu Singh vs Hukam Singh And Ors on 4 April, 2026

67. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sita Kashyap and Anr. v. Harbans Kashyap and Ors.- 2011 (123) DRJ 52 in a suit for partition amongst co-owners held that " In my view, since it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct appropriate division/apportionment not only of the common immovable property but also of the profits earned/ mesne profits which accrues from that immovable property, even if no application for grant of profits is pending at the time when the final decree is passed, would not be material when suit continues to be pending before Court for one reason or the other."
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next