Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Nirmala Devi vs Gopal Krishan And Ors. on 29 January, 1982

Autocrat Tours vs Arjan Dev on 29 October, 1982

(10) The question for determination is if there is sufficient cause for not filing the certified copies of the judgments of the Rent Controller, Rent Control Tribunal and the grounds of appeal before the lower appellate court. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that in the present case the omission was on account of negligence of the lawyer and his clerk and that under such circumstances, as held by this Court in Lachhiman Das v. Shri Suraj Parkash, and Nirmala Devi v. Gopal Krishan and others, , the delay should be condoned. Therefore, it is to be seen it negligence of the lawyer alone was the cause of non-filing the certified copies within time.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

This Order Shall Dispose Of The ... vs . on 15 March, 2012

4. The main ground on which the order dated 24/01/12 is sought to be reviewed is that there is an error apparent on record in the said order. The basis for it is stated to be that the defendant in exceptional circumstance can move a temporary injunction application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 without claiming any cross relief on a counter claim and in such case there is no occasion for him to prove a prima facie case as he only relies upon the prima facie case made out by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relief upon Nirmala Devi Vs Gopal Krishan and others 21(1982) DLT 326. In the said ruling a revision petition was moved in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Senior Sub Judge reversing the order of Subordinate Judge granting leave to amend the plaint. In the said case the Subordinate Judge Suit No.495/10 Page No. 3 allowed a review on the ground that a ruling of the Full Bench could not be brought to the notice of the Court while considering an application for amendment and the amendment was allowed after considering the said Full Bench ruling. But in the present matter no such case has been made out by the applicant / defendant no. 1 that any ruling was mentioned but was over looked or not brought to the knowledge of the Court while passing the order dated 24/01/12.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri. Haneef Mohd. Khan vs Dr. Zakir Hussain Memorial College ... on 20 February, 2016

The case titled as 'Nirmala Devi Vs Gopal Krishan & Ors.' 21 (1982) DLT 326 pertains to the amendment of the plaint in which the amendment was sought to the incorporated to convert the suit for mandatory injunction for vacation of the suit property into a suit for possession and the amendment was allowed. Therefore, nothing in this judgment to held that suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. As far as case titled as 'Mohd.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1