Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And Anr on 13 January, 1993

Mukesh Gupta (At : 11.00 A.M.) vs Vidit Kalsi on 29 May, 2014

In para- 18 of Rameshwar Dayal's case (supra) emphasis has been laid down on the cursory approach of S.C.C Court. In the present case controversy between the appellant and the respondents has been clearly defined and answered satisfactory. It cannot be said that the present judgment can fall in the category of the case mentioned in para-18 (supra). In the present case, the right between the parties has been conclusively determined.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - S Hasnain - Full Document

Asha Devi vs Dau Dayal (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 28 August, 2019

34 In Rameshwar Dayal vs. Banda, (1993) 1 SCC 531, the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were that the appellant therein claimed to be the owner of 'Gher' (property in dispute) in the town of Shameili and in that capacity, according to him, he had let out the property to one Habib as long ago as in 1966. He had filed suit No. 591/66 against Habib for recovery of rent and the suit was decreed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Shamim And 2 Others vs Aman Ullah Khan And 3 Others on 9 November, 2022

In Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his LR's 1993 All CJ 597, a judgment of Judge Small Causes Court without setting out the points for determination and without giving findings thereon was held by the Supreme Court as a judgment not amounting to a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) read with Section 2(9) and Rules 4 and 5 of Order 20, C.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the judgment and decree but not without the appellant being saddled with cost which I assess to be Rs. 2,000 / - (two thousand only) in as much the appellant has not been diligent in prosecuting its case before the trial court and this has led to an avoidable harassment to the plaintiff respondent who must be compensated by cost."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar vs Smt. Asha Agarwal And Another on 30 May, 2022

In next paragraph of the said judgement, Apex Court has held that it was obligatory for the Small Cause Courts, in the present case, to state the points for determination and give its finding or decision on each of the said points meaning thereby though in previous paragraph, Apex Court has held that issue and point of determination are same, but in next paragraph, Apex Court has clarified that so far as SCC suit is concerned, it is required to frame point of determination. Relevant paragraph Nos. 22 & 23 of judgment of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra) is quoted below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Tiwari - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Surendra Singh Pahwa And Others on 13 December, 1994

In Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his LR's 1993 All CJ 597, a judgment of Judge Small Causes Court without setting out the points for determination and without giving findings thereon was held by the Supreme Court as a judgment not amounting to a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) read with Section 2(9) and Rules 4 and 5 of Order 20, C.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the judgment and decree but not without the appellant being saddled with cost which I assess to be Rs. 2,000 / - (two thousand only) in as much the appellant has not been diligent in prosecuting its case before the trial court and this has led to an avoidable harassment to the plaintiff respondent who must be compensated by cost.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Atar Singh And Others vs District Judge, Jhansi And Others on 27 January, 1994

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (Dead) through his L.Rs., 1993 (1) ARC 249 : (1993 AIR SCW 594), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it is obligatory for Judge, Small Causes Court to State points for determination and give its finding or decision on each of the said points, and if the decision of Small Causes Court is not in conformity with S. 2(2) of C.P.C., it is not a decree. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment are reproduced below:--
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Karan Singh Tanwar vs The Estate Officer And Ors. on 25 May, 2007

In Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his LRs and Ors. . In the said case it was held that a subsequent suit on title to the property would not be barred by the principles of res judicata despite the fact that the earlier suit was for eviction of tenant and respondent sub-tenant, which was decreed by Small Cause Court without even incidentally determining question of title of respondent. The Supreme Court went on to hold that to operate as res judicata the first finding must be on an issue which has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and if the finding is given incidentally while determining another issue, which was directly and substantially in issue, such finding cannot be said to be a issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. In the suit filed by the appellant neither there was no declaration of the right or title nor the same was sought for and, therefore, a decree passed granting only a permanent injunction cannot operate as res judicata in respect of the claim and relief sought for under the provisions of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Sharma - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Offshore Enterprises Inc. on 12 November, 1993

720); Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India (Reported in ); Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Nalinbhai B. Munshaw (Reported in ); Jawahar Lal Barman v. The Union of India (Reported in ); Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (dead) through his LRs (Reported in (1993) I sc 531); Dilip Construction Company v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (Reported in AIR 1978 MP 261); M/s. Gangaram Ratanlal v. M/s. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. (Reported in AIR 1982 Bom. 72); Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. S. P. Arya (Reported in )
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 17 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next