Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 88 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjay Kumar Rai vs State Of Chhattisgarh 26 Wps/543/2018 ... on 16 January, 2018

Shri Ajay Rai vs Shri Kashi Yadav on 6 August, 2022

Ajay Rai v/s Kashi Yadav So much so since parties in both the suits are different otherwise also the first basic test that both the cases should be between the same parties is also not met herein. I need not dwell further on this point. Nothing has been stated during the course of arguments as to the fate of the said suit or otherwise as to how the said suit had any bearing in the facts of the present case. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sanjay Kumar vs Sh. Gulzari Lal @ Gulab on 14 October, 2019

5.1 It was submitted on behalf of the applicant / defendant no. 1 that the applicant was not having good terms with his father and due to this reason summons received by the father of the applicant was not served upon the applicant. Specific court query was put to the applicant to show the material in support of his contention regarding bad relations between him and his father. The applicant did not give any specific answer. He stated that there was dispute between him, his father Order M. No. 142/19 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Gulzari Lal @ Gulab & Anr. Page..... 4/10 and his brothers. The applicant wanted to construct one room over the roof of the third floor. Father of the applicant refused to give permission by saying that everyone else has equal space and there was no need for defendant no. 1 to have extra space. Electricity meter for the floor occupied by the applicant is separate. Upon court query, the applicant submitted that he has not installed any name plate or separate letter box for indicating that he is residing on the third floor of the said property. With regard to the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it was stated that due to bad health, he could not approach the counsel and the present application could not be filed within the statutory period. 5.2 It was submitted on behalf of the DH / non­applicant that in para no. 4 of the application, the applicant submits that his father was bed­ridden for last three years and he is died on 21.04.2019. This is a false claim since the process server served the summons on the father of the applicant on 31.05.2017. No documents have been filed about the medical health / illness of father of the applicant. The applicant came to know about the ex­parte decree on 19.03.2019 but the application was filed on 20.07.2019.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Pooja Rai vs Abhishek Kumar Rai on 18 August, 2025

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of case No. 908 of 2022 (Abhishek Kumar Rai Vs. Pooja Rai) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court Azamgarh is transferred to Family Court at Mau. The Family Court Azamgarh is directed to transmit the records of case No. 908 of 2022 to the Family Court, Mau. The Family Court Mau is directed to decide the case No. 908 of 2022 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act expeditiously affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S P S Sondhi vs Ut Police Chandigarh on 1 December, 2023

21. The petitioner also places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr, (2013) 10 SCC 765 to contend that where a period of limitation has been provided, it cannot be condoned unless there is a provision for the same. The decision relied upon by the petitioner is on the point that the period of limitation for filing application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is three months from the date of award and the same cannot be condoned. The said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case as the question raised in the present case is not of condonation of delay but pertains to whether the inquiry proceedings before the ICC will vitiate after the inquiry of stipulated period of 90 days. Therefore, the benefit of the said decision will not enure to the petitioner.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Urmila Devi vs Ajay Kumar Rai on 29 November, 2022

During the pendency of the present case the said case has been decided in favour of the defendant which is civil suit No. 16517/16, titled as Ajay Rai Vs. Kashi Yadav decided on 06.08.2022, vide which the plaintiff has been held entitled to recovery of Rs. 8,85,713/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eight Five Thousand Seven Hundred Thirteen Only) alongwith 6% per annum pendente-lite and future interest by the court of Sh. Sumit Dass, Ld. ADJ-04, South West, Dwarka, Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next