Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Sheikh Yusuf vs Haji Mohammad Jamil Ahemad on 23 November, 2015

Shri Ganesh N. Salunkhe vs Nizampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak ... on 12 January, 2016

11] The direction to implead Ganesh Salunkhe and Shankarlal Mehta in appeal no. 29 of 2008 is not relatable to powers under Order XLI Rule 20 of the CPC. Accordingly, there is no question of applicability of the decision in the case of Sheikh Yusuf (supra) even if one has to accept that the interpretation put thereon by Mr. Joshi, is correct. The direction issued, was for the purposes of setting at rest hyper technical objections, which were being put-
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Shri Ganesh N. Salunkhe vs Nizampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak ... on 12 January, 2016

11] The direction to implead Ganesh Salunkhe and Shankarlal Mehta in appeal no. 29 of 2008 is not relatable to powers under Order XLI Rule 20 of the CPC. Accordingly, there is no question of applicability of the decision in the case of Sheikh Yusuf (supra) even if one has to accept that the interpretation put thereon by Mr. Joshi, is correct. The direction issued, was for the purposes of setting at rest hyper technical objections, which were being put-
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Shukla vs Manoj Dutt on 29 March, 2025

18.9 Ld Counsel for the defendant further submits that when a defendant admits his signatures on a document but alleges that they were obtained by fraud, the burden to prove such fraud lies upon the defendant. However, in cases where the defendant denies his signatures and alleges forgery or fabrication, he is not required to provide further specifics to support his contention. Instead, the plaintiff--who has approached the court--bears the burden of disproving allegations of fraud or forgery. Reliance is placed on Sheikh Yusuf vs. Haji Mohammad, 2015(2) Mh.L.J
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1