Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Satyender vs Saroj on 17 August, 2022

Anarkali W/O Late Rampal vs Siyawati W/O Late Rampal And Ors. on 17 May, 2024

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Satyender and Others versus Saroj and Others(supra), has held that the counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and that such counter-claim must be instituted before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limit for delivering his defence has expired. More importantly, such a counter claim must be against the plaintiff.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th:Lrs . vs Gejo (D) Th:Lrs . on 2 January, 2024

13. As held in the case of Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors.2 , the second appeal in the present case will be governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 41, a decision being contrary to law is a ground for interference. The decision of the first Appellate Court was contrary to Section 47 of the Registration Act. The High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the first Appellate Court in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Lehna Singh(D) By Lrs vs Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs on 16 May, 2024

10. Recently, a Bench of three learned Judges in Satyender v. Saroj while dealing with a property dispute arising out of the State of Haryana, held as under:— “16. We may also add here that we are presently concerned with the laws in the State of Haryana. All the same, the laws as applicable in Punjab in the year 1918, were also applicable to the present territory of Haryana since it was then a part of the State of Punjab. Later on, the creation of the new State of Haryana, under the provision given in Section 88 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966, the laws applicable in the erstwhile State of Punjab continued to be applicable in the new State of Haryana. Furthermore, State of Haryana formally adopted the laws of the erstwhile State of Punjab, under Section 89 of the Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966. Therefore, in the State of Haryana a court in second appeal is not required to formulate a substantial question of law, as what is applicable in Haryana is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, it was not necessary for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next