Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing A. Sreeramaiah, S/O. J. Anjanappa vs The South Indian Bank Ltd. A Banking ... on 27 September, 2006

Saroj vs Jaswinder Singh And Ors on 24 July, 2024

No.1265 of 2019 decided on 10.09.2019; A. Sreeramaiah vs. South AMAN JAIN 2024.07.25 09:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 106 RSA-2470-2017 (O&M) -8- Indian Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 374 [Karnataka High Court]; and Kamalamma & Ors. Vs. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Coop. Marketing Society & Ors., 2009(33) RCR (Civil) 110 [Karnataka High Court].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Sarin - Full Document

Vipin Luthra & Another vs Vikram Kumar Jain on 23 November, 2010

Insofar as judgment of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Sreeramaiah Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Anr. (supra) is concerned, in that case, the High Court after noticing the rival contentions found that there was an element of possibility of settlement and, therefore, the High Court suggested the terms of settlement to the parties and in the light of said suggestions made by the High Court, the parties settled the matter out of Court and reported the same to the High Court. Thus in that case, the settlement was effected substantially within the purview of Section 89 of CPC and, therefore, Court fee was ordered to be refunded. Facts of that case were thus entirely different and therefore judgment of the said case is not attracted to the instant case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Gaddam Jithendra Kumar vs Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy on 9 May, 2025

In Dayaram's case (supra), reliance was placed in the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in A.Sreeramaiah V. South Indian Bank Limited"^ and in Kamalamma V. Honnali Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited^. Both the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, were referring to the provisions of Section 89 of CPC and Section 16 of the Court Fee Act, wherein, it was observed that even if the parties come forward to settle their dispute before the Court itself, they should not be denied refund of Full Court Fees on the ground that they had not settled the dispute by any of the four methods provided under Section 89 of CPC. The object behind section 89 CPC was to encourage the parties to arrive at settlement and if that object was sought to be achieved by means of referring the matter to any of the four methods mentioned in section 89 CPC, then even the ^ ILR 2006 Kar 4032 ® AIR 2010 Kar 279 12 (RNT,J & DR.YLR,J I.A.NO.l OF 2025 IN/AND A.S. N0.472 OF 2024) settlement arrived at the earliest stage before the Court would also be one of the method provided under Section 89, Sub-section (1).
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next