Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 233 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Ranganayakamma & Anr vs K.S. Prakash (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 16 May, 2008

Ralia Ram Kapoor ( Deceased) Through Lrs vs D.L.F. United Pvt. Ltd on 28 November, 2024

Further, Ld. counsel for defendant has correctly placed reliance in the case of Ranganayakamma & Ors. Vs. K.S. Prakash (dead) by LRs & Ors. CA no.3635 of 2008, wherein it was observed that, Order 6 Rule 4 CPC requires that complete particulars of fraud must be stated in the pleadings. It has been further observed that if a document is prima facie valid, a presumption arises in regard to its genuineness and the onus of proving otherwise lies on the person challenging the genuineness of such a registered document.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuldeep Singh vs Jagdeep Singh And Ors on 28 February, 2022

In light of this position, as has been detailed and discussed above, since the plaintiff was residing separately since decades at Chandigarh and there being no semblance of evidence, the alleged family of Wazir Singh, being joint they can be termed to be joint Hindu undivided coparcenary family and what right 11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2022 15:29:18 ::: RSA-2618-2008 (O&M) -12- accrues to plaintiff out of such a loose relationship is anybody's guess. Furthermore, in para No.52, the learned First Appellate Court has embarked upon an adventure into a finding that plaintiff in earlier suit of the year 1982 was not having antecedent title and how such a decree was binding without being registered under the Indian Registration Act is miserably off the tangent and rather reflects how the learned Court below in the impugned findings is trying to reach a target without there being way to it carved out earlier in the pleadings of the issues. Thus, from all what has been discussed and detailed above, being a consent decree of the year 1982, can only be challenged on the grounds of fraud and not on merits. Reliance placed on the judgment titled as 'Ranganayakamma and another versus K.S. Prakash (D) by LRs and others' 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 601 and further, Court cannot go behind a consent decree whether it is wrongly or rightly passed as is the Division Bench view of this Court in judgment 'Tej Singh and others versus Jagrup Singh and others' 1989 PLJ 38.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - F D Singh - Full Document

M/S Devi Constructions vs M/S Fowler Westrup (India) P Ltd on 21 February, 2022

37. With the light of the above submission made by learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned senior counsel for the defendant, let me go through the award passed by learned Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator in his award has referred to the relief claimed by the defendant herein under Section 16 of the Act, by filing application to the effect that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the case on account of execution of Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. Learned Arbitrator has referred to the claim statement and objection statement and also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant herein and also learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and by referring to the decisions cited by learned senior counsel for the defendant and also the 40 Com.A.P 79/2021 plaintiff distinguished the same by referring to Ex.R9 Memorandum of Understanding and has given finding at para No.22 stating that though there was a construction contract between the parties, which provides for liquidated damages to the tune of maximum of 5% of the value of the contract, it was emphasized by the defendant herein that due to inordinate delay in completion of the work beyond agreed period. The defendant is entitled to claim liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.1,69,33,239/- and since amount claimed by the plaintiff herein as final bill is less than one claimed by the defendant in the counter claim, at the intervention of the inFORM Architect, the settlement was arrived at by raising two points regarding execution of Memorandum of Understanding and also jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal as per Section 16 of the Act and elaborately discussed the various decisions cited by learned senior counsel particularly, in the case of Ranganayakamma and another Vs. K.S. Prakash (Dead) by LRs and others, regarding fraud and particulars of 41 Com.A.P 79/2021 proof etc., required to be pleaded and by referring to the various decisions and also the evidence given by CW1 during the cross-examination has come to the conclusion that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Suman Prasad W/O Sheo Shankar Prasad ... vs Lakshmi Pandey S/O Late Shyam Lal Pandey on 4 December, 2024

Assuming for the sake of arguments that Ext. 2 is a valid document, still the same by itself is not sufficient to establish the title of the plaintiff no.1, keeping in view, the settled principle of law that a deed of release cannot create title in favour of the person such release is made. As it is not the case of the plaintiff that she is the ancestral inheritor or legal heir so the ratio of Ranganayakamma & Another vs. K. S. Prakash (Dead) by Lrs.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Tata Consumer Products Limited vs Ecgc Limited on 10 June, 2025

115. The Defendant has sought to raise a plea of fraud and / or misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AVK/Kanchan Dhuri/Nikita Gadgil/KSG 70/79 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2025 18:56:50 ::: 1-COMSS 2030 OF 1996.doc Ranganayakamma and Another vs. K.S.Prakash and Others (supra) has while relying upon Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC held that when fraud is alleged, the particulars thereof are required to be pleaded. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the said decision are usefully quoted as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - A Ahuja - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next