Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Mehnga Singh And Ors. vs Gurdial Singh And Ors. on 13 August, 2003

Jagiri Ram (Deceased) Through His Lr vs Ralla And Others on 19 December, 2008

Elaborating further, the learned counsel relied upon Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") to buttress his submissions that denial has to be specific and if that is not done then it amounts to admission. Reliance was placed on Mehnga Singh and others v. Gurdial Singh and others, AIR 2004 P& H 93, Sarwan Singh v. Kankar Singh, 2001 (1) CCC 571 and M. Venkataramana Hebbar (D) by L.Rs v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others, JT 2007 (6) SC 164.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd on 11 January, 2013

In Mehnga Singh vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 93 it has been held that, "If the denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. It is further held that under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Narayan Oils vs M/S Veena Auto Syndicate on 19 January, 2013

In Mehnga Singh vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 93 it has been held that, "If the denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. It is further held that under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suit No. 402/12 vs Raj Kumar on 26 February, 2013

In Mehnga Singh vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 93 it has been held that, "If the denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. It is further held that under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Gopal S/O Sh. Tara Chand vs Anand Swaroop Aggarwal on 7 February, 2012

10. ARGUMENTS :­ I have heard Sh. S. S. Gupta Adv. for plaintiffs and Sh. T. C. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal Date:­7/02/2012 SCJ­Cum­RC : East, Delhi Suit No. 626/08 Page 20/59 Gupta Adv. for defendant no.1. None appeared for defendant nos. 2 to 7 and defendant no.8. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of plaintiffs. Ld. counsel for plaintiffs has relied upon case laws reported as : i) Mehnga Singh and others Vs. Gurdial Singh and others AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 93; ii) Chaitan Das and others Vs. Murali Dalai and others AIR 1971 Orissa 41; iii) Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. Janta Jeweller 2007 Rajdhani Law Reporter 521; iv) Omanhene Kwamin Bassayin Vs. Omanhene Bendentu II AIR 1937 Privy Council 274; v) M/s. Surajbhan Kailash Chand and another Vs. Hari Shanker Vashsist and another AIR1976 Delhi 70; vi) Smt. Krishna Rani Vs. Chuni Lal Gulati AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 119; vii) R. Jayapaul Vs Pappayee Ammal AIR 2004 Madras 6; viii) Umesh Bondre Vs Wilfred Fernandes AIR 2007 Bombay 29; ix) Amir Bi and others Vs Committee of Management of Nilasandra Mosque, Bangalore and another, AIR 1969 Mysore 103.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mandeep Kaur vs Lakhwinder Singh And Anr on 10 December, 2014

"It is well nigh impossible to bring any eye witness to prove the allegation of adultery. It is to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. It is a fact that the petitioner for most of the time after marriage remained in Dubai. This gave ample opportunity to the respondents to develop illicit relations with each other which fact stands proved by giving specific incidents not contradicted by the respondents. Publication of the News in Jagbani and Punjab Kesri gave further dimension to the version of the petitioner who is further supported by three independent respectables of the locality. The petitioner and his witnesses have not been cross- examined on the material aspects of their case i.e. on such and such date she had eloped with respondent No.2 Goldy and returned back after a period of two months. It has been held in Mehnga Singh and others v. Gurdial Singh and others Civil Court Cases 2004(1) 525 that failure to cross- examine on vital issue, adverse inference will be GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.02.18 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO-M-198 of 2007 -9- drawn.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

West District vs Sh. K.K. Mehrotra on 9 May, 2012

In Mehnga Singh vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 2004 Punjab and Haryana 93 it has been held that, "If the denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary. It is further held that under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next