Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 59 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs Thawar Das (Dead) Through Lrs on 20 August, 1999

Vasantha Ammal vs Babu Chettiar (Died) on 7 October, 2008

67. The learned counsel for R10 to R37 would cite the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 1999(7) SUPREME COURT CASES -RAM KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANOTHER VS. THAWAR DAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS, which would posit the proposition that the plaintiff should not come with false pleas and the absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff would disentitle the plaintiff from invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, so as to seek protection of the plaintiff's possession. My discussion supra relating to items 1 to 8 would indicate that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property at any time and relating to the first item she gained ingress to a portion of the property as put forth by D.W1 in his deposition. As such this Court cannot upheld the plaintiff's possession as a legal one.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Shah Babu Education Society And Anr. vs Presiding Officer, School Tribunal ... on 9 August, 2006

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to other judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. Thawar Das (Dead) through LRs. (supra). He has contended that as mentioned and observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein, the right of employer in this respect must be deemed to have continued and protected because of pending matter. The perusal of said judgment clearly shows that there the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered right of appellant to prosecute his appeal under Civil Procedure Code though the decree was executed. It appears that though appeal was filed, the appellant could not succeed in getting stay orders and hence the decree holder executed decree and in this background the grievance has been examined. It is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered statutory right conferred by Sections 96 and 100 of Civil Procedure Code and has held that merely because the decree is executed, the said right is not taken away because the lis continued.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Girdhari Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 January, 2012

It is settled principle of law that if for want of stay in appeal an order is executed and the same is ultimately set aside by the superior Court, the Court is required to restitute the subject matter of dispute to its original position. An order executed for want of stay from superior Court C.W.P. No. 10514 of 2011 6 will not make the appeal as infructuous. It is to be decided on merit and consequences will follow. (See: Ram Kumar Agarwal and another vs. Thawar Das (dead) through LRs. reported in 1999(2) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports, 459 (S.C.) The net result of all the litigation before the revenue authorities is that the entry made in the cultivation column of jamabandi for the year 2004-05 on the basis of order of Collector dated 12.05.2003 (Annexure P/2) which has been set aside, can not sustain since there is no order for correction of khasra girdawari.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

/ M/S First Futuristic Holdings Ltd vs Ms.Shalini Prasad K on 28 June, 2021

47) In Ram Kumar Agarwal and Another vs. Thawar Das (Dead) Through LRS. [(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 303], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "A person who falsely claims to have paid a sum of money and attempts to prove the plea at trial stage cannot be said to have been ever ready and willing to pay the sum due under the contract in question".
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

/ M/S First Futuristic Holdings Ltd vs Mrs.Shashikala Prasad K on 28 June, 2021

47) In Ram Kumar Agarwal and Another vs. Thawar Das (Dead) Through LRS. [(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 303], the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that "A person who falsely claims to have paid a sum of money and attempts to prove the plea at trial stage cannot be said to have been ever ready and willing to pay the sum due under the contract in question".
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paniram .....Tenant/ vs Additional District Judge And Others ... on 1 April, 2021

53. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held that one of the most essential ingredients for the purposes of attracting, the principles of the defence of Section 53-A, as by way of a part performance, it has had to be accompanied and established by evidence on record; that the proposed purchaser of the property on the basis of the alleged agreement for sale had ever had an intention to prove his willingness and readiness to get the deed of conveyance executed, and in those eventuality, and particularly, when in the present case, the alleged agreement for sale deed of 1974, continued to exist till the JSCC Suit was filed in 1989, it cannot be said that the petitioner in order to seek his defence under Section 53-A, had ever attempted to show his readiness and willingness by any act of his for getting the sale deed executed and hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraph has held that, where the very concept of readiness and willingness, was not established, to be proved by evidence on record, the plea of part performance of an agreement for 32 sale under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, is not available to be agitated by the petitioner.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Kamlesh Rai vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 4 April, 2003

29. It is settled proposition of law that a pure question of law, which does not require any investigation of fact, can be raised first time in writ jurisdiction. An issue which requires investigation of facts, cannot be allowed to be agitated, [Vide Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, (1993) 4 SCC 10 ; St. Arunchallai Pillat v. Southern Roadways Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 1191 ; A. M. Allison v. State of Assam, AIR 1957 SC 227 ; Cantonment, Ambala v. Pyare Lal, AIR 1966 SC 108 ; State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1992 (3) AWC 1804 (SC) : AIR 1992 SC 932 ; Bhanwar Lal v. T. K. A. Abdul Karim, AIR 1992 SC 2166 ; Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph, AIR 1995 SC 710 ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. U. P. Forest Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 1125 ; P. R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 ; State of Punjab v. R. N. Bhatnagar, (1999) 2 SCC 330 ; Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. M. C. Chelland Engineers S. A., (1999) 4 SCC 327 ; Rajasthan Agriculture University v. Ram Krishna Vyas, (1999) 4 SCC 720 ; Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1999) 6 SCC 762 ; Atlas Export Industries v. Kotak and Co., (1999) 7 SCC 61 ; and Ram Kumar Agarwal v. Thawar Das, 1999 (4) AWC 3341 (SC) : (1999) 7 SCC 303].
Allahabad High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 21 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next