Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 606 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1997

City Industiral & Development ... vs Vijaykumar Nilkanthrao Salunke And Anr on 13 February, 2018

154. Insofar as the Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking permission to place reliance on the additional evidence annexed to the civil application is concerned, in our view, the appellant has not satisfied the test and requirement under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is gross unexplained delay on the part of the appellant in seeking permission to place reliance on these additional documents. These additional documents were to the knowledge of the appellant long back. The reasons recorded in the civil application are totally unsatisfactory. Both the parties in this case had produced the documents and had led oral evidence in support of their rival pleas. In our view, even otherwise the material sought to be produced by the appellant at this stage is not necessary for proper adjudication of the rival pleas of both the 78 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:15:44 ::: fa416-00g parties. The appellant has placed reliance upon a photo copy of the alleged agreement which is even otherwise disputed by the claimants. We are thus not inclined to grant any relief in the said Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 in favour of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

City Industrial And Development ... vs Sunil Ratanlal Jethliya And Anr on 13 February, 2018

154. Insofar as the Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking permission to place reliance on the additional evidence annexed to the civil application is concerned, in our view, the appellant has not satisfied the test and requirement under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is gross unexplained delay on the part of the appellant in seeking permission to place reliance on these additional documents. These additional documents were to the knowledge of the appellant long back. The reasons recorded in the civil application are totally unsatisfactory. Both the parties in this case had produced the documents and had led oral evidence in support of their rival pleas. In our view, even otherwise the material sought to be produced by the appellant at this stage is not necessary for proper adjudication of the rival pleas of both the 78 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:15:49 ::: fa416-00g parties. The appellant has placed reliance upon a photo copy of the alleged agreement which is even otherwise disputed by the claimants. We are thus not inclined to grant any relief in the said Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 in favour of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S Landmark Developers, A Partnership ... vs The City And Industrial Corporation, ... on 13 February, 2018

154. Insofar as the Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking permission to place reliance on the additional evidence annexed to the civil application is concerned, in our view, the appellant has not satisfied the test and requirement under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is gross unexplained delay on the part of the appellant in seeking permission to place reliance on these additional documents. These additional documents were to the knowledge of the appellant long back. The reasons recorded in the civil application are totally unsatisfactory. Both the parties in this case had produced the documents and had led oral evidence in support of their rival pleas. In our view, even otherwise the material sought to be produced by the appellant at this stage is not necessary for proper adjudication of the rival pleas of both the 78 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:15:30 ::: fa416-00g parties. The appellant has placed reliance upon a photo copy of the alleged agreement which is even otherwise disputed by the claimants. We are thus not inclined to grant any relief in the said Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 in favour of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

City Industrial And Development ... vs Girish Ramakant Kharosekar And Anr on 13 February, 2018

154. Insofar as the Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking permission to place reliance on the additional evidence annexed to the civil application is concerned, in our view, the appellant has not satisfied the test and requirement under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is gross unexplained delay on the part of the appellant in seeking permission to place reliance on these additional documents. These additional documents were to the knowledge of the appellant long back. The reasons recorded in the civil application are totally unsatisfactory. Both the parties in this case had produced the documents and had led oral evidence in support of their rival pleas. In our view, even otherwise the material sought to be produced by the appellant at this stage is not necessary for proper adjudication of the rival pleas of both the 78 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2018 02:15:37 ::: fa416-00g parties. The appellant has placed reliance upon a photo copy of the alleged agreement which is even otherwise disputed by the claimants. We are thus not inclined to grant any relief in the said Civil Application No.12516 of 2017 in favour of the appellant.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr.M.L.Wadhera vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2012

sufficient to consider the same in evidence. Similarly mere registration of document itself is not sufficient to prove its contents also. Though under the Act, production of certified copies of sale deeds instead of original is admissible but it is also required that vendor or vendee or scribe of those sale deeds should be examined. Full Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasive Rao, AIR 1997 SC 2625 held as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Special Tahsildar [La vs V.Saravanan on 6 April, 2010

"6. ...... Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. If the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in beadroll of decisions.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Sh.Sanjeev Khanna vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2007

With respect to the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents, I would like to place reliance upon the judgment dt. 29.04.1997 reported in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Anr Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors (1997) 6 SCC 41, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that marking of certified copies of sale deeds per se not admissible in evidence unless duly proved by witnesses. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for the respondents cannot be considered as the basis for fixing the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 08.08.2000.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

And R/O 736 vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2007

16 The counsel for the respondents, in the present reference, have relied upon the award no. 5/DC/N/2001-2002 as Ex.R-1, copy of sale deed no.2046 executed and registered on 13.03.1995 as mark-A, copy of sale deed no.7421 executed & registered on 14.01.1997 as Mark-B. In Ex.R-1, the LAC has specifically stated that the confirming land use of the area under the present acquisition is residential as per master plan. With respect to the sale deeds relied upon by the respondents, I would like to place reliance upon the judgment dt. 29.04.1997 reported in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Anr Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors (1997) 6 SCC 41, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that marking of certified copies of sale deeds per se not admissible in evidence unless duly proved by witnesses. Therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds relied upon by the counsel for the respondents cannot be considered as the basis for fixing the fair market value of the land in question on the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act i.e. 08.08.2000.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next