Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 175 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Asha Devi Gupta & Ors on 1 September, 2003

Sh. Mohan Lal vs Smt. Kamlesh on 13 January, 2017

11 Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kamlesh filed written statement/objections to the petition under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and taken preliminary objection that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. The petitioner is tress-passer in possession of deceased's property and has no interest in it. The petitioner cannot apply for revocation. The P.C. 33/14/02      Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh                                             4/19 deceased Late Nanka was illiterate person and never signed in Hindi or any other language. The Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner to grab the disputed property. The signatures in Hindi on the Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner. Late Nanka marked his thumb impression throughout his life.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

CT CASES/615059/2016 on 31 May, 2022

"I had taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- in cash from Dhanno resident of Gali No. 12, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi. I had handed over to her two blanked signed cheques as security for procuring the above loan and the impugned cheque is one of the two cheques handed over Page 2 of 17 Rahul Gupta v. Asha CC No.615059/2016 to her. I do not know the present Complainant and I have never taken any loan from him. I have seen the Complainant for the first time today in the court. I did not receive any legal notice of demand before the filing of the present complaint. Hence, I am not liable to pay the cheque amount."
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge T&D; India Limited vs Reliable Engineering Projects on 24 August, 2017

In fact the learned Amicus Curiae who had appeared for the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Asha Devi Gupta & Ors.(supra) has pleaded that in view of these admissions by the petitioner, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the procedure that has been followed by the Council and an Award has been rightly passed by the Council.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - J Nath - Full Document

Mr. Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma, ... vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:58:55 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr. Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:59:04 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma Prop Of ... vs M/S Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:58:53 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr. Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:59:00 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:59:07 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr.Krishnabhagwan Rajaram Sharma vs M/S.Tata Motors Finance Ltd on 4 March, 2015

Insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Delhi High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 67 SCC 492, in which the Supreme Court quoted with approval few paragraphs from Russell on Arbitration and has held that there cannot be any doubt that a party does ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:58:57 ::: Kvm 38/40 ARBP304.14 not have an unfettered right. In my view the said judgment of the Delhi High Court also does not assist the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next