Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Sharda Mandal vs Anil Mandal 33 Wp227/1030/2018 Radhe ... on 5 December, 2018

Sharda Meena W/O Sh. M.C. Meena vs Rakesh Yadav S/O Sh. Maru Ram on 24 October, 2024

34.In conclusion, the plaintiff has failed to prove any document to assert his claim that the defendant was inducted into the suit property as a tenant and was occupying the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has Digitally signed SWAYAM by SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date: 2024.10.24 16:55:38 +0530 (Swayam Siddha Tripathy), Civil Judge-02(South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 24.10.2024 (Page 13 of 14) CS SCJ 1220/2022 SHARDA MEENA V. RAKESH YADAV successfully proven that the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to such relief. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharda vs Chaman Lal Chauhan on 15 April, 2026

Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.5 of 7 In her cross examination, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Smt. Sharda Chauhan has herself admitted that she has not filed any document to prover her ownership qua the suit property. In absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has relied upon a Ex.PW1/2 i.e. a complaint which is merely a complaint qua misbehaviour of the defendant. The plaintiff has neither examined any other witness in support of her case.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharda Devi vs Shivkumar Singh on 31 January, 2019

7. It is not in dispute that the Bus in question, with which the accident had taken place, was having a permit; that means that the vehicle was authorized to be used as a transport vehicle and, therefore, merely a fortuitous circumstance of time lag will not be so fatal so as to treat that there was fundamental violation of the policy condition so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. Therefore, this condition of the Insurance Company that because of time lag there was violation of condition of permit exonerating them from their liability, cannot be sustained and is hereby 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MA No.1000/2012 (Sharda Devi & Another v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Others) Gwalior, Dated : 31.01.2019 rejected.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr. vs Kuntesh on 18 September, 2019

13. It is not in dispute that prior to the demise of Mr. Ram Kishan, he had served on casual basis since the year 1988 for a period of around 24 years; and was conferred temporary status on 01.12.1993. The Tribunal in our view has rightly relied upon the earlier decision passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra), which in turn has W.P.(C) 10013/2019 Page 3 of 5 placed reliance on the Supreme Court verdict in Yashwant Hari Katakkar (supra), the relevant portion of which, reads as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next