Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Baljeet Kaur Kalra vs Sh. Surjeet Singh (Now Deceased) ... on 27 April, 2016

Cc No.631503/16 Daljit Kaur vs Surjeet Singh on 25 September, 2019

5. Besides this, complainant also examined Sh. Anand, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Ld. ADJ­04, SED, Saket as CW­2 who brought the original file bearing CS no.210548/16 titled as "Daljeet Kaur Vs Surjeet Singh" decided on 15.01.2018 by the court of Ms. Neelofer Abida Perveen, the CNR No:DL­SE­02­011148­2015 Page No. 4 of 18 CC No.631503/16 Daljit Kaur Vs Surjeet Singh then Ld. ADJ­04, SED, Saket. He also proved following documents:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karimuddin vs Chunnu Khan on 10 February, 2021

(b) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 because this sub section specifically requires an averment/pleading with respect to property being purchased as a trustee. Since, the defence of the defendant does not fall within the exception, the defence will be barred by law as per section 4(2) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Once the defence is barred by law there is no need to go into trial on this aspect because there cannot be a trial with respect to a plea / pleading which the law bars for being taken up. The aforesaid position of law has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Baljeet Kaur Kalra v. Surjeet Singh (Deceased) through his legal heirs and ors, 2016(2) CLJ 459 Del. In view of the discussion above and the settled position of law laid down in aforementioned judgment, the argument of defendant is considered to be without any force, thus stands discarded.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cs No. 105479/2015 Inder Mohan Jha vs . Ram Vishesh Jha (D) Through Lrs on 6 May, 2023

23.2. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that sans pleading, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take the plea of "fiduciary relationship". He also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while dealing with a similar plea in the case of Smt. Baljeet Kaur Kalra vs Sh. Surjeet Singh (Now Deceased) wherein it was held as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suman Kumar Aneja vs Rajeev Aneja on 6 September, 2016

19. It   may  be   mentioned   that   Plaintiffs   are   claiming   to   be   co­owners  of  the   suit property, but at the same time it is the admitted case of the Plaintiffs that the suit property was in the name of Smt. Asha Rani Aneja. If it is assumed that  Smt. Asha Rani Aneja died intestate then all the parties to the suit would have been having   the   rights   in   the   suit   property,   and   it   such   a   situation   the   relief   of injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiffs could only be given with respect to their share that is it would have been imperative for the Plaintiffs to ask for the relief of partition as well. In fact in the written statement of the Defendant No. 2, it has been stated that the suit property is the joint family property of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and each is having 1/4 th share in the suit property. Be that as it may, in view of the provisions of  The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 even if it is assumed to be true that the suit property was purchased from the funds of both the Plaintiffs and  Shrimati Asha Rani Aneja on the strength of this fact itself the Plaintiffs would not have any right in the suit property unless with the averments of the relevant facts the Plaintiffs would have brought the case   in   the   present   suit   with   the   provisions   of   section   4(3)   of  The   Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (See judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Baljeet Kaur Kalra v. Surjeet Singh in CS (OS) No.2113 of 2010, dated 27.04.2016 &   J.N.   Kohli   v.   Madan   Mohan   Sahni   &   Anr.   In   RFA   No.207/2012  decided   on 07.05.2012.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sandeep Gupta vs Registrar on 19 October, 2019

18. The court is satisfied that it is fit case where the court can exercise the powers under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and pass a judgment on the basis of admitted facts and material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has rightly relied upon Baljeet Kaur Kalra (Supra) and Vinay Kumar Aggarwal (Supra) where in it was held that unnecessary trial just because issues are framed causes harassment to the parties. It is also held that once suit can be disposed off on the basis of admitted pleadings and other admissions, suit ought to be disposed of by not putting the parties to the burden of a trial. Trial is not compulsory in every suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

CRLR/312/2018 on 10 October, 2018

Steps be taken within two weeks. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in case no. 19 of 2018 Smt. Manjeet Kaur vs. Surjeet Singh under section 125 Cr.P.C. shall remain stayed provided that revisionist shall pay ` 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent no. 2 (wife). The amount shall be paid by 7th of every month.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - L P Singh - Full Document
1