Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagwan Dass Arora vs First Additional District Judge, ... on 25 July, 1983

Smt. Arti Dixit And 2 Others vs Dr. Sushil Kumar Mishra And 6 Others on 19 August, 2021

26. The case of Bhagwan Das Arora (Supra) next relied upon the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, provides that where they were conflicting views regarding an amount of stamp duty to be paid on surety and surety was furnished prior to making the restoration application as per the law but on account of dispute regarding the stamp duty on the security, the same was not accepted as valid, the Apex Court held that the litigant cannot be blamed for the conflicting views of the Courts regarding appropriate stamp duty on the security produced by the appellant before the Court. In the present case there is no such dispute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Siddharth - Full Document

Arti Dixit vs Sushil Kumar Mishra on 18 May, 2023

Also, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in Bhagwan Dass Arora v. First Additional District Judge, Rampur and others2. The Trial Court passed Order on security after two years, viz., on 29.03.2015 with the expression ‘inappropriate security’. The Trial Court 2 (1983) 4 SCC 1 13 had to give direction on sufficiency of security within the prescribed period. If that had been passed and the Trial Court raises questions about sufficiency of the security, the appellants could not have submitted other security or cash without the Order of the Court. Reliance is placed on the Order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the High Court. In view of the Order passed by the High Court, in the hierarchical system, the ADJ erred in overlooking the Order of the High Court. We are reminded that the Order of the ADJ dated 01.08.2017 was also challenged before the High Court in the Writ Petition. The merits of the case must be considered. THE SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gupta Cold Storage on 9 March, 2005

In such a situation Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Ist Additional District Judge. A.I.R.1983 S.C. 954 has laid down that the preferences of Judges should not be allowed to work hardship on litigant in respect of procedural provision. The Apex Court found that on the question of validity of security bond to be furnished for certain amount, the two premier High Courts deferred on the requirement of valid security bond to comply with the provisions of Section 17(1) of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The Madras High Court took a view that such bond should be stamped with the Court fee stamped. But the Calcutta High Court found that it was not so required. The Allahabad High Court rejected the bond and preferred to follow the view of Madras High Court which required that the bond should be stamped with the Court fee stamped. In this connection, Supreme Court made following observations, which are fully attracted in the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Krishna - Full Document

Shyma vs Sh. Sanjay Chopra on 9 September, 1999

It appears that the earlier Division Bench's view of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench dealing with the case of Ram Lal (supra): In this regard it will be appropriate to make a reference to the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Assistant Collector of Estate Duty, Madras v. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal, Madras, J.T. 1994(7) S.C. 513 and Bhagwan Dass Arora v. First Additional District Judge, Rampur and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 954.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next