Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Bank Of India vs Lakshimani Dass & Ors on 10 March, 2000

Shiv Shankar Lal Through Lrs. vs Kishan Chand Through L.Rs. on 7 May, 2003

In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors., A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 1242; Smt Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. S. Chokosiri and Co., A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1845; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 and Bank of India v. Lekhimoni Dass, (2000)3 S.C.C. 640.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

240Th Report On Costs In Civil Litigation

9.1 Section 95 of the Code provides that where, in any suit, an arrest or attachment has been effected or a temporary injunction has been granted under 47 Section 94(c), if the Court is satisfied that the arrest, attachment or injunction was applied for on insufficient grounds or there were no reasonable or probable grounds for instituting the suit, on an application made by the defendant, the Court could award a reasonable compensation to the defendant but not exceeding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- or exceeding the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. Prior to the amendment by Act 46 of 1999, w.e.f. 1.7.2002, the amount that could be awarded under this provision was "not exceeding Rs. 1,000/-". Sub-section (2) of Section 95 imposes a bar on any suit for compensation in respect of such arrest, attachment or injunction, if the provisions of Section 95 are invoked by the defendant and an order is passed by the Court. The Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. Lekhimoni Das 2000 (3) SCC 640 had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 95 and held that the scope of the said provision is very limited and is in the nature of summary proceeding and that it is alternative to a suit; that what would be required to be established in a suit would be quite different from adjudication of an application under Section 95; that if a party avails of remedies under Section 95, the amount that could be awarded would be limited to the amount specified in the Section.
Law Commission Report Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K S Bhandari vs M/S. International Security Printers ... on 16 May, 2025

55. The availability of multiple remedies does not mean that one remedy is excluded in favour of another. This principle of law is further upheld by the Supreme Court in the judgment Bank of India v. Lekhimoni Das [(2000) 3 SCC 640] wherein it was inter alia held that where two remedies are available, one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next