Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 188 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Ashok Paper Kamgar Union And Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 5 September, 2003

Ashok Kumar vs Dharam Godha on 13 October, 2025

11. It is further contended that since the plaintiff had only paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant, thus the balance sale consideration was much higher than Rs. 17,50,000/-. The plaintiff did not file any suit for specific performance of alleged CS No.7796/2016 page 6 of 18 Ashok Kumar vs. Dharam Godha contract. The plaintiff had fabricated the documents and defendant was not allowed to go through the contents of the alleged agreement to sell and did not give any copy thereof to the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.P.Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank ... vs Mr Umesh Chand Asawa And 10 Others on 26 August, 2022

(Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha). Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. Whether or not disobedience is willful depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience.
Telangana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Fouja Singh R/O Village And vs Hrtc & Anr on 7 January, 2022

21. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav (2008) 14 SCC 115, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352, Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop.Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati (2001) 7 SCC 530.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Tejram S/O Gulab Hazare vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 July, 2010

8. Before we deal with the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we would like to have a glance at the judgments relied upon by them. Section 2(b) of the Act defines "Civil contempt" and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union .vs. Dharam Godha and others, (2003) 11 SCC 1 while dealing with the expression "wilful" has observed that "Wilful" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Village Sai Post Office Ballera vs State Of H.P. And Another on 5 May, 2022

21. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1, Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav (2008) 14 SCC 115, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352, Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV (2006) 1 SCC 613, Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next