Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Kumar Ganganand Singh And Ors. vs Maharaja Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur ... on 1 February, 1927

Mahesh Chandra Bayan vs Manindra Nath Das And Ors. on 24 January, 1941

The Patna High Court has adopted the Madras view {vide Ganganand Singh v. Rameshwar Singh ('27) 14 AIR 1927 Pat 271, Mathura Singh v. Rama Rudra Prasad Sinha ('36) 23 AIR 1936 Pat 231), and has gone to the length of saying that gross negligence amounts to fraud and affects the proper representation of the minor and takes away the jurisdiction of the Court to pass a decree.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Raj Kishore Prasad Jaiswal And Ors. vs Subak Narain Singh And Anr. on 13 July, 1957

24. And so finally in that case it was held that the mere passing of such an order could not have any binding effect on the judgment-debtor. As for the cases relied upon by Mr. Das, in sup-port of his contention that once such an order is passed in the proceeding that by itself is sufficient to bind the judgment-debtor, as to the effect of such a proceeding, it is enough to say that in all of them service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 was held to be voidable and not void and as such the orders passed therein were binding on the judgment-deotor. In fact, there is no case cited by him where an order was held to be binding against the judgment-debtor even when the service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 was void. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Das also is without substance.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh And Anr. vs State Of Him. Pra. on 3 April, 1996

27. In so far as the appellant Bhupinder Singh is concerned, the evidence in the form of a horoscope Ext. DB has been placed on the record 10 show that appellant Bhupinder Singh was born on 4th of September, 1970. This horoscope is alleged to have been prepared by one Pandit Ruldu Ram, who is alleged to have died sometime in the year 1985. The learned counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on AIR 1927 Pat 271, (Ganganand Singh v. Rameshwar Singh Bahadur), AIR 1938 Calcutta 43, Noni Gopal Ganguly v. Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta, AIR 1933 Calcutta 51, Smt. Nirmalanalini Devi v. Smt. Kamalabala Dassi, AIR 1917 Madras 930 and AIR 1954 Rajasthan 38 : 1954 Cri LJ 258, Madansingh v. The State, has contended that the horoscope is receivable in the evidence under Section 32 clause 5 of the Evidence Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R L Khurana - Full Document

Happy Home Builders (Karnataka) Pvt. ... vs Delite Enterprises on 13 July, 1993

In Ganganand Singh v. Rameshwar Sing Bahadur, AIR 1927 Patna 271, the High Court points out that a consent decree does not stand on a higher footing than a contract between the parties, The Court always has the jurisdiction to set aside a consent decree upon any ground which will invalidate an agreement between the parties. In the absence of any such ground, the consent decree is binding on the parties.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs Union Bank Of India And Ors on 20 September, 1991

In Ganganand Singh & Ors. v. Rameshwar Singh Bahadur & Anr., AIR 1927 Patna 271, the High Court points out that a consent decree does not stand on a higher footing than a contract between the parties. The Court always has the jurisdiction to set aside a consent decree upon any ground which will invalidate an agreement between the parties. In the absence of any such ground, the consent decree is bind- ing on the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 204 - T K Thommen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next