Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (3.49 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar Bhagat vs Md. Imran 22 Mac/982/2020 Smt. Priyanka ... on 28 August, 2020

Ayush Rai And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 August, 2023

8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Tehsildar Sahjanwa, Tehsil Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur (respondent no. 2) before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Mutation Case No. T202105310605900 (Sunil Rai Vs. Bechan) in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, unless there is any legal impediment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

World Sport Group(India) Pvt Ltd vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India on 16 March, 2022

A party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, fast and loose or approbate and reprobate. When one party knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, it is estopped by denying the validity and binding effect of that contract on him. Once a party takes advantage of any instrument, he must accept all that is mentioned in the said document. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Sharan v/s Purushottam and Ors [(2020) 6 SCC 387], the relevant portion of which reads thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Saroj Pubral vs Akhtar Ali on 20 November, 2025

15. Admittedly, the vehicle of respondent no. 2 was insured with respondent no. 3, as on the date of accident. However, respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. has taken certain technical pleas, but no witness has been examined nor any document has been placed on record to support the contention of Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3/ Ins. Co. Further, no material has come on record which shows that there is any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy of offending vehicle. The main contention of the respondent no. 3 is that respondent no. 1 was not holding the driving licence for the category of vehicle he was driving, as respondent no. 1 was Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KUMAR Saroj Pubral Vs. Akhtar Ali & Ors. Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balinder Yadav vs Sunil Kumar Sangwan on 11 September, 2024

1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the Order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Complaint Case No.23112/2016 titled "Sunil Kumar Sangwan vs. Balinder Yadav" whereby the Application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant for placing on record the Promissory Note of 2012 which he has found recently while going through his old documents, to be placed on record and complainant be permitted for his further re-examination, has been allowed.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document
1