Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.40 seconds)
Documents citing Govinda Naik Gurunath Naik vs Gururao Puttanbhat Kadekar Since ... on 6 August, 1970

M/S.Arunoday Developers vs M/S.Gemini Arts Private Ltd on 7 August, 2009

33. The finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the Supplementary Agreement is suspicious cannot be said to be without any basis, for the reasons which I have stated above, when there are lot of discrepancies between the original Development Agreement dated 17.3.1988 and the Supplementary Agreement relied upon by the petitioner dated 25.7.1990 and in such view of the matter, the observation of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Govinda Naik Gurunath Naik v. Gururao Puttanbhat Kadekar since deceased by L.Rs. Mrs.Padmavathi Gururao Kadekar and others, AIR 1971 Mysore 330, wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows, is again of no help to the petitioner:
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Biru vs Nanhi on 14 May, 2007

By referring to the case of Govinda Naik Gurunath Naik v. Gururao Puttanbhat Kadekar since deceased by L.Rs. Mrs. Padmavathi Gururao Kadekar and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 Mysore 330, Mr. Battas would say that the Courts are to consider whether the person is in a position to dominate the will of the other person and whether in fact dominated the mind of the person who was of a weak mind and further that whether he could have had no independent advice to enable him to arrive at an independent judgment. Seen in this context, he would plead that the appellant was certainly a person of weak intellect and was in a position to be dominated by the respondent who did so by taking him to her parents' house before bringing him to the Court at Narwana, where, due to some prior arrangement, everything was done within one day. It is not a case where the respondent is seen to have acted in a good faith that the allegation of fraud made can be ignored. This is a case where proved circumstances are not compatible with the hypothesis of the respondent acted in a good faith. The allegations of fraud levelled against her, in my view, are made out.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - R Singh - Full Document

Habeeb Khan And Others vs Valasula Devi And Others on 25 April, 1996

12. Relying on K. Kanakarathnam v. A. Perumal, , Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi, and Govinda Naik v. Gururao, AIR 1971 Mysore 330, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondents have not given the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation and undue influence in their plaint and therefore no amount of evidence can be looked into for considering whether the documents had been obtained by practising fraud or undue influence on the 1st plaintiff and her husband as also regarding the alleged misrepresentation. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that oral mortgage is not permissible by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and on the basis of the alleged oral mortgage suit for redemption is not maintainable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 33 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1