Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Charu Kishor Mehta vs Prakash Patel And Ors on 13 June, 2022

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., ... vs Shri. Rajeev S/O Late Shri. Chunnilal ... on 28 March, 2025

Judgment 378 cra77.24 33 vs. Shyam Pukhraj Asopa and ors supra; Bank of Rajasthan vs. Suryakant Sukhdeo Gite and ors supra, Axis Bank Limited vs. Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and ors supra; State Bank of India vs. Aurelio Jose DA Costa supra; Bank of Baroda vs. Paramount Conductors Limited supra; Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Frontline Corporation Ltd supra Charu Kishan Mehta vs. Prakash Patel supra; Union Bank of India vs. M/s.Gnandrum Enterprises supra; G.Vikram Kumar vs. State Bank of Hyderabad supra, Smita vs. Jitendra, reported in 2022 DGLS (Bom) wherein the aspect as to the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of Section 34 is extensively dealt with. The legal position settled is that the object of the SARFAESI Act is very good aiming at reducing "non performing asset". The constitutional court had to interpret provisions of the Act dealing with many complicated issues and keeping in view the interest of borrowers. Many issues under the .....34/-
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jehangir Tehmas Patel vs Fateh Singh Cheema And Ors on 25 February, 2025

18. Mr. Tamboly pointed out that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be applicable to Testamentary Suits in view of Section 268 and 295 of Indian Succession Act. He then invited my attention to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v/s Union of India15, Charu Kishor Mehta v/s Prakash Patel 16, Padmawati v/s Harijan Sewak Sangh 17 to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the Courts have a duty to discourage wrong doers from 15 2008 6 SCC 344 16 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1962 17 (2012) 6 SCC 460 Shubham 17/39 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2025 21:57:02 ::: 18 901-TS-65-2012.doc prolonging litigation by imposing costs and that the costs imposed must be the real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful person. It was thus he submitted that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs in the present case. Submissions on behalf of Defendants.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kishandas Shroff And Ors vs Sushila H. Mehta Jaisukh N.Bhuta on 5 March, 2025

Thus, given the above I find that Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have filed their respective caveats solely to block the issuance of probate in favour of the Shubham 24/27 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2025 21:55:40 ::: 25 904-TS-20-2004.doc Plaintiffs without having even the slightest semblance of a case on merit to oppose the grant of probate in favour of the Plaintiffs. It is for this reasons, I find that an order of costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must follow, since the conduct of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 clearly in my view amounts to an abuse of the process of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charu Kishore Mehta vs. Prakash Patel8.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Trevor Fernandes vs Tyrone Peter Fernandes on 11 March, 2025

C. On conduct, I must note that the Defendant, after taking various contentions in the Affidavit in Support of the caveat, did not lead any evidence in the matter. The Defendant has also not appeared in the matter after the cross-examination of the Plaintiff. The Defendant, even at the stage of final hearing, did not withdraw his caveat but simply failed to appear before this Court. Thus, in my view, the conduct of the Defendant clearly establishes that the Defendant had filed the Caveat simply to stall the grant of Probate in favour of the Plaintiff and nothing more. Such conduct in my view, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and would thus entitle the Plaintiff to an Mugdha 11 of 13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2025 22:43:59 ::: 12 Judgement-TS 67-13.doc order of costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charu Kishore Mehta vs. Prakash Patel5.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Poly Films Ltd vs Naveen Kumar Srivastava on 22 March, 2025

62.It would be injustice if the Defendant is not compensated for the same. Needlessly drawing a person into litigation has to be dealt with a heavy hand, as has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2022, wherein cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the wrongdoer who drew another into litigation without just cause.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar Pandey on 27 March, 2025

62. It would be injustice if the Defendant is not compensated for the same. Needlessly drawing a person into litigation has to be dealt with a heavy hand, as has also been observed by the 1 Judgment dated 22.03.2025 [CNR No. DLND030025712019] CS SCJ No. 706/2021 Computer Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Pandey Page No. 21 of 23 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel and Ors., MANU/SC/1044/2022, wherein cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the wrongdoer who drew another into litigation without just cause.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vasant Gangaram Samarth vs Suresh Bhirwandekar, Mrs. Geetanjali ... on 25 June, 2025

While there is no doubt that this factor alone would not be enough to conclude that the said Will was a valid will, the facts of the present case would be a relevant factor in support of the genuineness of the said Will. This is more so because the Defendants have not even made out a prima facie of the existence of any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution. Hence, the allegation of suspicious circumstances remains the mere Mugdha 12 of 14 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2025 22:38:18 ::: 13 Judgement-TS 94-09.doc ipse dixit of the Defendants and nothing more. In this context, reliance by the Plaintiff on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thangam and Anr and Derek A C Lobo and Others is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case. D. The Defendants' conduct in the present case leaves no manner of doubt that the Defendants have filed their Caveat and Affidavit in support only to delay the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Plaintiff and nothing else. The conduct of the Defendants thus is plainly malafide and must thus be met with an Order of costs. There is a duty cast upon the Courts to discourage Parties from prolonging litigation by imposing costs, using it as a tool to (i) prevent abuse of the law (ii) protect the Plaintiff from being deprived of their rights and (iii) discourage frivolous litigation, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India 6, this Court in the case of Charu Kishor Mehta vs Prakash Patel7 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmawati vs Harijan Sewak Sangh8.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Mumbadevi Zilla Sahakari Pat ... vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, ... on 18 July, 2025

(I) Akar Plastics Vs. Rajgurunagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & others, (2003) 105 BOMLR 339 (II) Shri. Dilipkumar Hirachand Jain Vs. Dena Bank, WP/1787/2008 Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (III) Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. Vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (2017) 5 SCC 496 (IV) Union of India and others Vs. Pirthwi Singh and others, (2018) 16 SCC 363 (V) Charu Kishore Mehta Vs. Prakash Patel and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1962 6887.14wp etc (18) (VI) Vijay Shivaji Kokate Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mumbadevi Zilla Sahakari Pat Sanstha ... vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, ... on 18 July, 2025

(I) Akar Plastics Vs. Rajgurunagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & others, (2003) 105 BOMLR 339 (II) Shri. Dilipkumar Hirachand Jain Vs. Dena Bank, WP/1787/2008 Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad (III) Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. Vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, (2017) 5 SCC 496 (IV) Union of India and others Vs. Pirthwi Singh and others, (2018) 16 SCC 363 (V) Charu Kishore Mehta Vs. Prakash Patel and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1962 6887.14wp etc (18) (VI) Vijay Shivaji Kokate Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next