Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India vs Midland Industries And Ors. on 17 September, 1987

Ashwani Kumar Verma vs Mr Ankush Kumar Tandon on 12 April, 2018

She has relied upon State Bank of India Vs. Midland Industries & Ors AIR 1988 Delhi 153. As far as this judgment is concerned, it was suit for recovery by bank and certain preliminary objections were taken which were stated to be very material which would go to the root of the suit, however, in the present case preliminary objections are with respect to cause of action and locus standi which do not form any significance in view of the fact that since the son of the landlord has filed the suit for ejectment, cause of action is disclosed in the plaint and he being the son of the landlord who had died intestate is one of the co-owner of the property. It is a very settled proposition of law that even a co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raheesh Ahmad And Ors vs Ms. Hansa And Ors on 1 April, 2024

India vs. Midland Industries & Ors, (supra), it has been held that unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. There is no dispute as to the legal prepositions propounded in the aforesaid judgments, however, these judgments do not help the appellants/ plaintiffs. Firstly, because they are not the defendants and secondly, there is clear cut admission of the appellants/plaintiffs themselves that they were not in possession of two rooms on the first floor at the time of filing plaint and secondly, they have failed to take right steps in pursuance to direction given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 23.07.2018. Hence, these judgments are of no help to the appellants.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sangeeta Gupta vs M/S B.R.Industries on 31 July, 2023

6. Defendants addressed arguments mentioning that the suit is not liable to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Defendants have relied on the decisions in the matter of "Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs Daljeet Singh & Ors." V(2019) SLT 262, "State Bank of India Vs Midland Industries" AIR 1988 Del 153 and "Sh. Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sehkari Mandali Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr." AIR 1988 Del 115. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff submitted that the suit CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 4 of 20 should be decreed in view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kailashwati vs M/S B.R.Industries on 31 July, 2023

6. Defendants addressed arguments mentioning that the suit is not liable to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Defendants have relied on the decisions in the matter of "Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs Daljeet Singh & Ors." V(2019) SLT 262, "State Bank of India Vs Midland Industries" AIR 1988 Del 153 and "Sh. Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sehkari Mandali Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr." AIR 1988 Del 115. On the other hand, CS No.530/2022 Kailashwati Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 4 of 22 counsel for plaintiff submitted that the suit should be decreed in view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurmeet Singh Sidana vs Ameek Singh Sawhney on 6 October, 2023

19. Likewise where specific issues have been raised in spite of admission on the part of the defendants the plaintiff would be bound to lead evidence on those issues and prove the same before he becomes entitled to decree and the plaintiff in that event cannot have a decree by virtue of provision of Order 12 rule 6 CPC without proving those issues. The case of State Bank of India vs. Midland Industries and Ors. AIR 1988 Delhi 153 is relevant in this regard."
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Sunita @ Sudesh vs Kapil Dev And Ors. on 9 February, 1990

(28) MR.BEHL, learned counsel for defendant, on the other hand, has urged that, under law, the pleadings should be read, as a whole, and the alleged admission cannot be read in isolation. He has placed reliance upon the judgments in Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Mulji Haridas A.I.R. 1915 Privy Council, 2; Indermal Tekaji Mahajan v. Ramprasad Gopilal and another and State Bank v. Midland industries 1987 R.L.R. (Note) 59.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lakshmikant Shreekant (Huf) ... vs M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd. on 27 January, 1998

In the second case of State Bank of India (supra) the plaintiffbank had filed a suit for recovery of their dues. The suit was contested on various pleas and 7 issues were framed. The plaintiff sought a decree under Or 12, Rule 6, CPC. It was observed that judgment on ad mission by the defendant under Order 12, Rule 6 is not a matter of right and is rather a matter of discretion of the Courts though such discretion has to be judicially exercised and where a case involves questions which cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under the rule, the Court is free to refuse exercise of the discretion. On this case, on facts, it is observed that the objections raised go to the root of the case and if these were found against the plaintiff are likely to nonsuit the plaintiff. Obviously, the defense raised triable issues in that case and the application was disallowed in peculiar facts of that cage.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 40 - J B Goel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next