Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Kali Prasad & Ors vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation & Ors on 26 July, 2000

Shankar vs Surendra Singh Rawat (D) on 11 October, 2018

In Kali Prasad and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 640, this Court reiterated that Section 331 read with Schedule II bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of such reliefs which are mentioned in Schedule II and for adjudication of which, a specific authority has been prescribed thereunder. In the aforesaid case, this Court held that Section 209, which contemplates filing a suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title, does not postulate eviction of “asamis”. If Section 209 is not applicable, the consequential provisions contained in Section 210 would also not be attracted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Patangali vs State Of U.P. on 1 June, 2012

Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814, Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043, State of Punjab v. Krishna Niwas, AIR 1997 SC 2349, State of Orissa v. Narain Prasad, (1996) 5 SCC 740) : (AIR 1997 SC 1493), State of Rajasthan v. Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar & Party, (2000) 4 JT (SC) 186 : (AIR 2000 SC 1441) and Kali Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2000) 6 SCC 640 : (AIR 2000 SC 3722), wherein it was held that once an order is passed and accepted by the party and from that order it derives benefit and advantage for sometime, the party cannot be permitted to assail the validity of that order. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly disallowed the appellants from assailing the validity of the policy of auction by virtue of which they have been deriving benefit of the possession of the shops and took advantage by utilising them for trading purpose. The parties entered into the bargain on the footing that the appellant shall pay the agreed rent based on bids given by them in open auction. Since the appellants seek to wriggle out of their basic obligation, the entire bargain will perish. In that event, as a necessary corollary the appellants will be required to give up the possession of the shops."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Syril Sundararaj vs The Presiding Officer on 1 April, 2024

28. We are unable to see as to how the said judgments apply to the facts as in the present case. The MACT, which has the power of a civil court, is not possess of jurisdiction to give a finding that the driver is not liable so as to interfere with the power of the employer to take action against its employee. If we were to hold so, then we would be enlarging the scope of MACT not only deciding the liability between the victim and the tort-feaser, but also giving it a power to render a finding between the employer and employee. Such a situation is beyond the scope of Motor Vehicles Act. We are not dealing deep into this aspect. If we were to go into the merits of the case, it would prejudice the parties. Suffice to say that the judgment in Kali Prasad's case AIR 2000 SC 3722 does not improve the case of the writ petitioner on the question that has been framed for us to answer.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

T.Mallika vs T.Mallika on 1 July, 2024

In the judgment reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527 - Badri 51/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.259 of 2007 Prasad Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that where a man and woman have lived as husband and wife in the eyes of society for several years and even if witnesses to the actual ceremony have not been examined the same is not fatal to the case. However, in the instant case, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have uniformly spoken about a marriage ceremony that has taken place in a temple. Despite the witnesses adducing evidence in this regard, the learned Trial Judge has not considered their evidence on a presumption that since the plaintiff's mother was a Muslim and the said Kandasamy Moopanar was a Hindu, there could not have been a marriage in the temple. The Trial Court has substituted its view to the oral evidence of the witnesses which has not been diluted in cross examination.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document
1   2 Next