Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon vs Mohinder Parkash & Ors on 31 July, 1989

No.2 Was Also Appointed As The ... vs Were Often Returned Dishonoured And ... on 22 January, 2021

34. Again in the decision reported in A.I.R. - 1989 - S.C. - 1775 (Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon vs. Mohinder Parkash) where the suit was resisted on the ground that the recitals in the sale deed served as an acknowledgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the above-mentioned decision reported in A.I.R. - 1967 - S.C. - 935 (Tilak Ram 31 Com.O.S.No.9039/2005 vs. Nathu) and has held as follows:-
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranbir Singh And Ors. vs Gita Ram And Ors. on 4 March, 1992

In its latest judgment Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon v. Mohinder Parkash, AIR 1989 SC 1775, even the recital in a sale deed executed by the mortgagee in respect of the transfer to the purchaser the rights of recovering the principal amount and interest according to the mortgage deed was considered as an acknowledgment that mortgage money still remained unpaid and also that mortgagor had subsisting right of redemption which he could exercise against the mortgagee.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jitendra Panchal vs The Intelligence Officer, Narcotic ... on 19 September, 2007

18. Similarly, in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab , Mohinder was convicted in Special Sessions Case No. 6 of 1995 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 by the Designated Court, Sangrur on having found in possession of Sten gun bearing No. 13303 and two magazines containing in all 12 live cartridges.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 13 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Kanakamma vs B.Banerjee Babu on 6 April, 2010

19. One may now refer to the decision reported in Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon v. Mohinder Parkash (AIR 1989 SC 1775). An identical question was considered in the said decision. The suit in that case was one for redemption. The mortgage deed was of the year 1886. In normal course, the suit has to be brought before 22.5.1946 the limitation being 60 years. However the suit was filed only on 28.12.1968. The plea of limitation was got over by raising a plea that her son on 1.11.1913 had specifically acknowledged the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property. It was therefore claimed that the said acknowledgment constituted a fresh starting point for computing the period of limitation. The question was posed S.A. 717/1998. 15 for consideration in paragraph 5 of that decision. In the said decision, it was held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next