Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Umesh Chandra Saxena And Ors. Etc. vs Administrator General And Ors. on 24 November, 1998

Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Kr. Singh vs Smt. Soni Shahi on 9 May, 2023

22. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Saxena & Ors. Vs. Administrator General & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 All. 109 in para 46 agreed the observation of Single Judge who referred Section 141 C.P.C. which provides that the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits would be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction and he was of the view that the proceeding for grant of Letter of Administration was one in which the Court exercised its Civil Jurisdiction and as such all rigours of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. Further referred Rule 39 of Chapter XXX of the Allahabad High Court Rules to say that when the matter become contentious the application for letters of administration would be treated and registered as a suit and the petition was to be read as plaint and the objection as Patna High Court C.Misc.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S D Mishra - Full Document

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd vs Gujarat Narmada Valley Faterlizers Co ... on 7 December, 2015

[D] 'Umesh   Chandra   Saxena   Vs.   Administrator  General, U.P.' reported in AIR 1999 ALLAHABAD  109,   wherein,   the   Allahabad   High   Court   has  held that the rejection of plaint was purely  for  lack   of cause  of  action  on  the  part  of  the   Petitioner   in   preferring   an   application  for   Letters   of   Administration   when   it   was  held that provision of Order VII Rule 11 of  the Code may apply to the proceedings under  Succession   Act   also   and,   therefore,  Page 20 of 26 HC-NIC Page 20 of 26 Created On Thu Dec 10 01:24:49 IST 2015 C/SCA/3562/2014 CAV JUDGMENT considering   the   peculiar   facts   and  circumstances of that case and, therefore, it  would not help to the Petitioner - Defendant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document

Ranjeet Modi vs Pr Secretary Gov Urban Dev Gov Dep &Ors; on 23 March, 2017

In support of his (5 of 11) [CSA-2/2016] argument he placed reliance on Umesh Chandra Saxena v. Administrator General, Allahabade AIR 1999 Allahabad 109, Nagar Palika, Nathdwara v. Temple Board, Nathdwara, RLW 1981 (239), Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr. (2004) SCC 137, Govind Narayan v. Shri Baheti Dharmshala 2014 (4) RLW 3420 (Raj) and R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu 2016 (4) WLN (SC).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - P Gupta - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Mahor (Gupta) vs Anil Kumar Mahor (Gupta) And Anr. on 11 April, 2007

Placing reliance on another judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Brajamohan Sabato v. Sarojini Panigrahi and Anr. , a judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Saxena and Ors. v. Administrator General, U.P. Allahabad and Ors. , and another judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Atul Krushna Roy v. Raukishore Mohanty and Ors. AIR 1957 Orissa 77, Shri Bharadwaj argued that in arriving at the conclusion Trial Court has not committed any error, the discretion exercised does not require any interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, accordingly he prays for dismissal of this petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - R Menon - Full Document

Bimla Devi vs . Banwari Lal on 19 December, 2014

AIR 1997 Allahabad 323, it was held that order 7 rule 11 CPC casts a duty on the court to reject the plaint for non disclosure of cause of action and it can not be left to the event of an objection in this respect to be raised by one party. Similarly in the matter of "Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. Administrator General U.P., AIR 1999 Allahabad 109 it was held that Court is competent at any stage of proceedings to exercise power under order 7 rule 11 CPC and and formal application of a party is not required.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1