Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Indira Transport vs Rattan Lal on 16 May, 1997

Pemula Vijayarathnam And Anr. vs Boyapati Singa Rao And Ors. on 13 September, 2007

S. Ramesh (since deceased) per L.Rs. v. Dr. Mohammed Imam Hannorai and Anr. 2007 (5) ALT 10, Hussain Khan v. Yadavalli Choultry (Trust), Kothapeta and Ors. , State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma , Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam and Ors. , Ram Saran and Anr. v. Smt. Ganga Devi , Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and Anr. , Potti Venkata Kasi Viswanadham v. Vallabha Vyas , Balamoni Kistanna and Ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy 1982 (2) ALT 408, Parul Bala Roy v. Srinibash Chowmal and Ors. , M.T. Jaggo Bai v. Utsava Lal AIR 1929 P.C. 163, Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal , Gopi Krishna Maji v. Judhistir Dey and Ors. AIR 1995 Cal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mohd. Ali vs Sheikh Mohd. Yahya on 15 March, 2012

(RCT Appeal No.32/2011) (Page 4 of 10) Babu Lal v. Raj Kumar & Others (1996) 3 SCC 154; Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal & Ors 67 (1997) DLT 544 for submitting that the claim filed by the appellant was required to be adjudicated upon by the learned Addl. Rent Controller instead of dismissing the objections straightaway. As such, it was submitted that the impugned order, being perverse, is liable to be set-aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishtiyaq Ahmed vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 November, 2014

In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on four judgments in N. Palaniappan Vs G. Pandurangan AIR 1990 MADRAS 327, Indira Transport Vs Rattan Lal 1998(I) RCR (Civil), Gopalji Prasad Keshari Vs Md. Rayez @ Fulan & Ors civil revision no. 1954 & 1960 of 1989 and Babulal Vs Raj Kumar & Ors. Since all the four judgments are on the same point, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme in Babulal Vs Raj Kumar & Ors is referred, where it has been laid down that under the amended Code, right of suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the old Code has been taken away.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Srm Infracon Pvt Ltd & Anr vs An Elegant Hospitality & Anr on 19 January, 2017

18. To the same effect is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Indira Transport Vs. Rattan Lal AIR 1998 Delhi 2 where, while appointing a Receiver to take possession of the property, the SHO concerned was directed to provide police assistance to the Receiver. It was held that before directing delivery of possession to the Receiver by police aid, a positive finding should have been recorded whether the persons obstructing Ex. P. No.3/2017 Page 6 of 8 delivery of possession were the persons bound by the decree and whether the decree holder has a right to immediate possession from them.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next