Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 91 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And Another vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And Others on 12 April, 1954

Vijay Shankar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 February, 2021

(i) The respondent No.2-Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District-Prayagraj shall decide the mutation application dated 29.08.2019 in the case registered as Case No.887 of 2019 (Vijay Shankar Vs. Sitaram) under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, within a period of three months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Bhanot - Full Document

Duroflex Limited vs Mr. Johnny Mathew on 24 February, 2004

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel. It is on record that Shri Tommy Mathew, brother of the petitioner had filed the Company Petition No. 68/2000 as early as on 25.08.2000 alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company. When the Company Petition No. 68/2000 was mentioned on 25.08.2000, considering the family nature of the Company, the CLB directed the parties to resolve the disputes amicably, pursuant to which the parties deliberated the terms of settlement from time to time ultimately resulting in an order made on 13.07.2001, incorporating the terms of settlement agreed among the parties. Thereafter, a number of applications were filed by both the sides on the implementation of the terms of settlement and various orders were periodically passed. It is therefore, clear that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the Company Petition No. 68/2000 was not heard finally and decided by the CLB. On the other hand, the disputes among the parties concerned were amicably settled, without going into merits of the claim and counter-claim of either of the parties and without giving any finding on the acts of oppression and mismanagement alleged in the Company Petition No. 68/2000. By virtue of the consent orders, the respondents were to pay Rs. 199 lakhs together with interest at Specified rates to the petitioner in the Company Petition No. 68 of 2000 in full and final settlement of his claim including the consideration for the shares held by him. This consent order, does not give any relief to the present petitioner, not being a party to the Company Petition No.68/2000, in which the decision in Shankar Sitaram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke-(supra) has no application in the facts of the present case. At this juncture, it is relevant to observe that the present petitioner made an application in CA No. 22/2001 during March, 2001 seeking for his impleadment as the second petitioner in the Company Petition No. 68/2000, which was resisted by the respondents and resulted in dismissal of the said application. When the petitioner filed the first Company Petition through his power of attorney holder in September 2002 alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company, the respondents took objection on the premise that the petition could not be filed through his attorney, upon which Counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 18.09.2002, reading as under :-
Company Law Board Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

A. Subramanian vs Muthukrishna Reddiar on 9 July, 2004

11. As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellant are concerned, the decision in SHANKAR SITARAM v. BALKRISHNA SITARAM is distinguishable as in that case it was found that the causes of action for the two suits were one and the same and the plaintiff in that suit had omitted to claim the relief and abandoned his right to claim the relief and the Supreme Court held that the subsequent suit instituted by the plaintiff for the abandoned right was not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Sanjeev Malik on 15 February, 1996

(25) But then, as pointed out by the Bombay High Court in Shankar vs. Balkrishna , referred to above, if the original plaint is to be retained for purpose of deciding the issue within the Court's jurisdiction and not be returned, the plaintiff cannot be asked to file the suit with regard to the other subject matter in another Court by obtaining a certified copy of the plaint in the former of these Courts. The latter Court which could pass decree against the property, could not proceed with the suit before it on the basis of a certified copy from the former Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - M J Rao - Full Document

Sarabjit Singh Chadha vs Dinesh Sehgal on 11 August, 2021

Relying upon Shankar Sitaram Sontakke supra, it was held that once the compromise had been arrived at between the parties, the parties could not be permitted to re-open the same; that in passing the decree by consent, the Court adds its mandate to the CS(OS) 610/2018 Page 10 of 13 consent; that by passing a decree in terms of a consent order, the Court authorises and approves the course of action consented to and that the consent decrees are also executable. It was further held, that once a decree is passed by the Court, the Court become functus offcio to modify the decree.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

R.Vijayalakshmi vs Bhuvaneswari on 31 March, 2010

41. In the present case, the notice issued under Order XXI, Rule 22 was personally served on the defendant, but he did not appear or show cause why the decree should not be executed. The notice was accordingly made absolute by order, dated January 23, 1990 and leave was granted to the plaintiff to execute the decree. The decree passed by the High Court on June 18, 1984 in terms of the compromise was a valid decree and it constituted res judicata. As sated by this Court in Shankar Sitaram Sontakke Vs. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next