Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)

Sh. Rang Lal vs Sh. Banwari Lal (Deceased) on 7 November, 2019

4. The case of the defendants as per their WS is that the the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit and has concealed the true and material facts from the court. It is further stated in the WS that the plaintiffs has filed the present suit regarding a common baithak which is jointly occupied by all the defendants and other villagers of Patlan family including the present plaintiff and another civil suit titled as "Banwari Lal vs. Ran Lal' is already pending before the court of Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi wherein the present defendants (except defendant no. 3, 9 and 10) have prayed to restrain the present plaintiff and his son namely Sh. Ram Kumar and their associates not to create any documents and not to install any water or electricity connection in their names as the baithak in question is common one. It is further stated CS SCJ No. 612546/2016 Pages 6/16 in the WS that the present suit is a counter blast to the said suit and since, the present plaintiff has not filed any counter claim in the said suit, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. It is further stated in the WS that Sh. Banwari Lal on behalf of the entire Patlan family made a written complaint to the SDM concerned and the Deputy Commissioner (South-West) for taking necessary action. The concerned authorities have already initiated an inquiry in this regard. The said lal dora certificate is false and fake as the number mentioning as khasra no. 155/2 does not exist in lal dora and the entire lal dora of the village Jhardon Kalan is one number, therefore, the alleged certificate is false and fabricated by the plaintiff and his son Ram Kumar. Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harpinder Singh vs Suresh Kumar And Ors on 12 December, 2019

In the given circumstances, when the case is examined in the light of judgments of this Court in Banwari Lal and Karnail Singh's case (supra), there is no escape from conclusion that findings of the Tribunal attributing 50% negligence to the injured cannot sustain and accordingly set aside. As a natural corollary, the appellant shall be entitle to entire compensation assessed by the Tribunal and additional compensation, if any, allowed by the Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Krishan Alias Chanda @ Chandi Ram vs Deepak And Ors on 13 November, 2019

In this context, reference can be made to judgments of this Court Banwari Lal and another Vs. Ran Singh and others, FAO No.2191 of 2014, decided on 23.08.2016 and Karnail Singh and others vs. Balwinder Singh and another 2013(1) Vol. 169 PLR 774. In the given circumstances, findings of the Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to riders of the motorcycle cannot be allowed to sustain and are accordingly set aside. As a natural corollary, the claimants would be entitle to receive the entire compensation assessed by the Tribunal and additional compensation, if any, allowed by this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Shubham vs Gurmeet Singh on 15 February, 2018

In this contest, reference can be made to judgments of this Court Banwari Lal and another VS. Ran Singh and others, FAO No.2191 of 2014, decided on 23.08.2016 and Karnail Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh, 2014 (7) RCR (Civil) 177. Under the circumstances, findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 attributing contributory negligence to Harbhajan Singh to the extent of 50% cannot be allowed to sustain and ordered to be set aside. Consequently, issue no.1 is answered in favour of the claimants that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of maruti Gypsy bearing No.DDD-4805 by Gurmeet Singh, its driver.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document
1