Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeswari Amma And Another vs Joseph And Another on 10 January, 1995

Maria Alda Estrelina & Another vs Antonio Pinto & Others on 5 May, 2000

11. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeshwari Amma and another v. Joseph and another (supra). In that case, Decree Holder Rajeshwari Amma, Sukumara Pillai and Neelamma Pillai had filed execution proceedings which were ordered to be executed. The respondent went in revision, in which only Rajeshwari Amma and Sukumara Pillai were impleaded as respondents, omitting Neelamma Pillai. In other words, order of executing Court directing delivery of possession which was executed and possession taken in favour of three persons was challenged against only two persons. The order in favour of Neelamma Pillai became final. The property involved in the execution was undivided between the decree-holders. The High Court had set aside the order in which only two of the three decree-holders had been joined as respondents. The question before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was right in allowing the revision against the unimpleaded respondents and whether that order also came in aid of the appellants Rajeshwari Amma and another. The Apex Court held since the order of delivery of possession in favour of the decree holders is common and inseparable and since it became final as against Neelamma, the High Court was not right in setting aside the order as against the two respondents, namely the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R K Batta - Full Document

Popatlal Prabhudas And Sons vs Indu Electric Industries And Anr. on 18 July, 2002

2(2) and 2(4) is right in relying on the decision in Rajeshwari Amma and Anr. v. Joseph and Anr. (supra) to support this proposition. The Apex Court has observed that when the order becomes final in respect of one of the party who was not impleaded as respondent in the proceeding, just as in the present case that the respondent Nos. 2(1), 2(3) and 2(5) were impleaded but the petition has been dismissed as against them, the order of delivery of possession in favour of the Decree Holder being common and inseparable and since it has become final as against such party, proceeding cannot be allowed to be prosecuted further.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Ravi Bus Service And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 July, 2001

16. Even otherwise, whether in earlier round of litigation, Mr. Daye appeared with authorisation or not, is a question of fact and requires investigation, thus, cannot be allowed to be agitated orally first time in the writ jurisdiction. (Vide A.M. Allison and Anr. v. B.L. Sen and Ors. (22); A. St. Arunachalam Pillai v. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. (23); The Cantonment Board, Ambala v. Pyare Lal (24); State of U.P. and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta (25); Bhanwar Lal v. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (26); Rattan Lat Sharma v. Managing Committee (27); Rajeshwari Amma and Anr. v. Joseph and Anr. (28); Commissioner of Income Tax v. U.P. Forest Corporation (29); P.R. Deshpande v. Mamti Balaram Haibatti (30); State of Punjab v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar (31); Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A. (32); Rajasthan Agriculture University v. Ram Krishna Vyas (33); Warher Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (34); Atlas Export Industries v. Kotak & Co. (35); Ram Kumar Agrawal v. Thawar Das (36); Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal and Ors. (37); Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (38) and M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal (39).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Gurjant Singh vs Krishan Chander And Others on 8 January, 2001

(69). It is settled proposition of law that a pure question of law, which does not require any investigation of fact, can be raised first time at any forum or stage. An issue which requires investigation of facts, cannot be allowed to be agitated. (Vide A.M. Allison vs. State of Assam (53); St. Arunchallai Pillai vs. Southern Roadways Ltd. (54); Cantonment, Ambala vs. Pyare Lal (55); State of U.P. vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta (56); Bhanwar Lal vs. T.K.A. Abdul Karim (57); Ratan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee (58); Rajeshwari Amma vs. Joseph (59); Commissioner of Income Tax vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (60); P.R. Deshpande vs. Maruti Balaram Haibalti (61); State of Punjab vs. R.N. Bhatnagar (62); Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. M.C. Chelland Engineers S.A., (63); Rajasthan Agriculture University vs. Ram Krishna Vyas (64); Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (65); Atlas Export Industries vs. Kotak & Co. (66); Ram Kumar Agrawal vs. Thawar Das (67); Kali Prasad & ors. vs. Deputy Director Consolidation & ors., (68); S. Saktival vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & ors. (69); and Badrinath vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (70).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 84 - Cited by 8 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mamraj (Dead) Through Premshanker, ... vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 5 December, 1997

11. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai v. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. ; A.M. Allison v. State of Assam ; Cantonment Board Ambala v. Pyarelal ; State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta : Bhanwar Lal v. T.K.A. Abdul Karim ; Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph ; and by this court in Khuman Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) RLW 1367.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Khuman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 29 July, 1997

9. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai v. Southern Roadways Ltd. and Anr. ; A.M. Allison v. State of Assam ; Cantonment Board Ambala v. Pyarelal ; State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta ; Bhanwar Lal v. T.K.A. Abdul Karim and Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph AIR SC 719. Whether the enquiry report was given or not is immaterial as he failed to satisfy the Court that non-supply of the inquiry report has caused the prejudice to him.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Pukh Raj And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 29 July, 1999

B. L. Sen, AIR 1957 SC 227; Cantonment, Ambala v. Pyare Lal, AIR 1966 SC 108; State of U. P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 932; Bhanwar Lal v. T.K.A. Abdul Karim, AIR 1992 SC 2166; Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph, AIR 1995 SC 719; Commr. of Income Tax v. U.P. Forest Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 1125; P. R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 ; (AIR 1998 SC 2979); State of Punjab v. R. N. Bhatnagar, (1999) 2 SCC 330 : (AIR 1999 SC 647); Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. M. C. Chelland Engineers S.A., (1999) 4 SCC 327 : (AIR 1999 SC 1614); and Rajasthan Agriculture University v. Ram Krishna Vyas, (1999)4 SCC 720 : (AIR 1999 SC 1937).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next