Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Usha Gupta vs Sh. Subash Chand Tyagi on 28 November, 2011

H.K. Mitroo vs M/S. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd on 1 July, 2016

In Usha Gupta Vs. Subash Chand Tyagi (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in case of suit for possession of agricultural land against the trespasser by the Bhumidar, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted as the jurisdiction in such case lies with the Revenue Assistant. But CS No.311/11 H.K. Mitroo Vs. M/s. Spearhead Digital Studio Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishan Lal vs Rk Associates And Anr on 7 July, 2021

33. Mr. Jain during his submissions has relied upon the judgments in the case of Hatti (supra), Usha Gupta (supra) and RFA 396/2018 and connected case Page 14 of 19 Jag Narain Mallah (supra) in support of his submission that the suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title and damages shall lie before the Revenue Assistant have no applicability in the facts of these appeals and the judgments are distinguishable on facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Sh. Sanjay Jain vs M/S Gemini Polycoats Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2015

16. It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of order VII rule 11 CPC facts as averred in the plaint are to be looked into.In this regard it would be gainful to refer herein observation made in Usha Gupta v. Subash Chand Tyagi, 2011 SCC 2012 AIR CC 359 at page 28 "4. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made has the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sanjay Jain vs M/S Gemini Vinyls Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2015

In this regard it would be gainful to refer herein observation made in Usha Gupta v. Subash Chand Tyagi, 2011 SCC 2012 AIR CC 359 at page 28 "4. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made has the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1