Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Thresia vs Johny on 17 October, 2002

Seth Shrenikbhai Kasturbhai &O vs Sahu Ashok Kumar Jain & Ors on 27 August, 2012

In   this   regard,  reference may be made to the decision of the Karnataka High  Court   in  Sri   M.D.   Nanaiah   Vs.   K.   Nagaraju   &   Ors.   [AIR   1995   Karnataka 389],   decision of the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in  Lakhbir   Singh   Vs.   Harpinder   Singh  [AIR   2004   P&H   127]  and   the  decision of the Kerala High Court in   Thresia Vs. Johny [AIR 2003   Kerala 97].
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N N Tiwari - Full Document

Maninder Sood vs Deep Pal Singh & Ors on 10 September, 2013

Para 3 of the plaint simply states that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit property as highlighted in the plan. There is no averment which states about the exact area in possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that as far as the status report filed by the protection officer is concerned, it is a manipulated report and cannot in any CS(OS) 1389/2012 Page 4 of 10 manner be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner was, at any stage, in exclusive possession of more than one bedroom in the suit property. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgments in Thresia and another v. Johny and Others, AIR 2003 Kerala 97; Lakhbir Singh v. Harpinder Singh and others AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 126; and Jugan K. Mehta v. S.S. Gulati and others 2004(4) CCC 299 (Del.) to submit that in the absence of any clear evidence a person cannot be punished for violation of a status quo order on mere surmises and that unless the violation of the injunction order is proved beyond reasonable doubts, no contempt can be said to have arisen.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document
1