Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Bramhanand Rai And Anr. vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 29 January, 1986

M/S. Trade International Huf vs M/S. Rajiv Pharmaceuticals on 28 August, 2021

Trade International & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Pharmaceuticals & Ors Page No. 38 of 59 "......a decree which is passed ex­parte is as good and effective as a decree passed after contest..... A similar view has also been expressed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bramhanand Rai Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur [AIR 1987 All 100]....."
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saroja vs Chinnusamy (Dead) By L.Rs And Anr on 24 August, 2007

We are in full agreement with this view of the Madras High Court holding that a decree which is passed ex parte is as good and effective as a decree passed after contest. A similar view has also been expressed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bramhanand Rai Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur [ AIR 1987 All 100]. However, the learned counsel for the appellant relying on a decision of the Madras High Court, namely, A.S.Mani (deceased) by L.Rs. Thirunavukkarasu & Ors. Vs. M/s.Udipi Hari Niwas represented by Partners & Ors. [1996 (1) Madras Law Journal 171] invited us to hold that the principle of res judicata would not apply as the former suit was decided ex parte. This decision, in our view, is distinguishable on facts. In that decision, the observation that the ex parte decree shall not operate as res judicata was made on the basis that the earlier petition which was filed for eviction against the tenants was dismissed only on technical grounds, and after keeping this fact in mind only, the Madras High Court held that the ex parte decree would not operate as res judicata inasmuch as the petition was not heard and finally decided as contemplated in Section 11 of the CPC. Therefore, in our view, since condition No. (iv), as noted herein before, was satisfied, we hold that the principles of res judicata would be applicable in the present case as held by the First Appellate Court and also affirmed by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Shailendra Tewari And Others vs Ist.A.D.J.Faizabad And Another on 20 February, 2013

15. A doubt arose that decision of this Court in Rama v. State of U.P. (supra) is in conflict with another subsequent decision in Shambhu Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh, 1975 AWC 469 and the matter came to be considered by a Division Bench in Baijnath Rai and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others, 1986 AWC 919. The view taken by Division Bench in para 2 of judgment fortify the view I have discussed above. The Court held:
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 Next