Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Pushpaben Champaklal Shah ... vs Rikhavdev Tirthram Sharma And 19 Ors. on 11 October, 2005

Atul Kumar Singh vs Nitish Kumar & Others on 13 November, 2019

20. Similarly, he has also relied upon Pushpaben Champaklal Shah (supra), a Gujarat High Court Judgment, to contend that both parties can examine contesting party or witness. It is pertinent to note that in this very decision it is indicated that an application for summoning such a witness should not be granted as a matter of course but at the appropriate stage the Court can pass such an order keeping the facts of the case and the conduct of the contesting party in mind.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Dr. Amitabha Sen vs Sports World International Limited And ... on 4 February, 2008

5. Dr Sen then relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Pushpaben Champaklal Shah and Anr. v. Rikhavdev Tirthram Sharma and Ors. , wherein it was observed that "there is no express prohibition in examining other side as witness." It was also observed in this decision that " both the parties can examine such contesting party or witness". It must also be pointed out that in this very decision it is also indicated that an application for summoning such a witness should not be granted as a matter of course but at the appropriate stage the Court can pass such an order keeping the facts of the case and the conduct of the contesting parties in mind.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Kuljit Singh Butalia vs Firstcorp International Ltd on 24 August, 2012

Vs. Gurdial Singh & Anr., AIR 1927 Privy Council 230 where it was held that "sometimes a party adopts a manoeuvre whereby the party does not call essential witnesses but endeavours to force the other party to call him and so suffer the discomfiture of having them treated as their witnesses." 14 Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has admitted receiving the payments which were made by the defendant company for purchase of suit premises but he has raised a false plea that they were made by said Mr. O.P. Aggarwal for paintings sold by Mr. Shanti Dave. Moreover, after the categorical denial by Mr. Shanti Dave in his deposition it has therefore at the present stage become utmost relevant and necessary that said Mr. O.P. Aggarwal be summoned for the just decision of the case. 15 Defendant has relied on Pushpaben Champaklal Shah and Anr. Vs. Rikhavdev Tirathram Sharma & Ors., AIR 2006 Gujarat 66 wherein it was observed that " there is no express prohibition in examining other side as witness. " It was also observed in this decision that "both the parties can examine such contesting party or witness." It also must be pointed out that in this very decision it is also indicated that an application for summoning such a witness should not be granted as a matter of course but at the appropriate stage the Court can pass such an order keeping the CS No. 184/2011 P 6 of 14 : 7 : facts of the case and the conduct of the contesting parties in mind. 16 Defendant has submitted that in Union of India Vs. M/s. Orient Engineering and Commercial Co. Ltd., (1978) 1 SCC 10, wherein, in the context of summoning certain arbitrators, the Supreme Court observed:
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuljit Singh Butalia vs Firstcorp International Ltd on 17 August, 2012

Singh and Anr., AIR 1927; Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India VI (2002) SLT 519; Pushpaben Champaklal Shah and Anr. Vs. Rikhavdev Tirthram Sharma and Ors., AIR 2006; Sri Awadh Kishore Singh and Anr. Vs. Sri Brij Bihari Singh and Others, AIR 1993 Patna 122; V.K. Periasamy alias Perianna Gounder Vs. D. Rajan, AIR 2001 Madras 41; Syed Yasin Vs. Syed Shaha Mohd. Hussain, AIR 1967 Mysore 37 to contend that the court may summon a person as a witness though he has not been summoned by either of the parties. However, in view of the observations made hereinbefore, I do not think it necessary to summon and examine the said Mr. O.P. Aggarwal.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pulusu Kalavathi vs Raparthi Pandu Pandaiah on 27 February, 2025

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., and Others Vs. M/s.Susru Sea 1 2008 (1) ALD 8 2 2005 (2) ALD 735 3 TMD,J CRP.No. 3065 of 2024 Foods 3 and also in the case of Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma 4 and in the case of Pushpaben Champaklal Shah and Another Vs. Rikhadev Tirthram Sharma and Others 5.
Telangana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1