Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1669 (1.10 seconds)
Documents citing Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

Lokesh vs Vijay Kumar Gupta on 16 January, 2023

8. Subsequently thereto, the matter was fixed for final arguments which were heard conclusively on 21.11.2016. After, hearing the final arguments, Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit of plaintiff deserves to be dismissed for the relief claimed in the plaint. Firstly, as the evidence led by the attorney of plaintiff was not considered tenable, keeping, in view of the judgment of Janki Vashdeo vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439. Secondly, because, of the defective pleadings, of the plaintiff as he had miserably failed to exactly specify the time of construction undertaken by the defendant, after grabbing the suit property. Thirdly, the exact length and width of the plot of the plaintiff as occupied by the defendant was not clear, and, admittedly, no valid recognized site plan of the suit property in question was ever annexed alongwith the other property documents at the time of transfer of property from one party to the another. Finally, the documents were not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and the best admissible evidence had not been put forward by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lokesh vs Rajbir Singh on 16 January, 2023

8. Subsequently thereto, the matter was fixed for final arguments which were heard conclusively on 21.11.2016. After, hearing the final arguments, Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit of plaintiff deserves to be dismissed for the relief claimed in the plaint. Firstly, as the evidence led by the attorney of plaintiff appearing on his RCA No. 23/2017 Shiv Kumar through its LRs Vs. Rajbir Singh Page No. 5 of 18 behalf, and, deposing before the Court as PW1 was not considered tenable keeping in view of the judgment of Janki Vashdeo vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 439, Secondly, because, of the defective pleadings, of the plaintiff as he had miserably failed to exactly specify the time of construction undertaken by the defendant, after grabbing the suit property, Thirdly, the exact length and width of the plot of the plaintiff as occupied by the defendant was not clear, and, admittedly, no valid recognized site plan of the suit property in question was ever annexed alongwith the other property documents at the time of transfer of property from one party to the another; and Finally, the documents were not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and the best admissible evidence had not been put forward by the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goda Krishna vs Pidiseti Vasantha Kumar on 6 September, 2024

As such, the same was a void document and creates no title, the plaintiff failed to enter into the witness box, PW.1 was also 12 years old at that time. No other witnesses were examined in proof of Ex.A1, as such the same remained not proved. The suit ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone, as the plaintiff was a minor, Ex.A1 not proved and the GPA was not competent to speak about Ex.A1. The trial court decreed the suit on the presumption that the defendant's document was not correct but failed to consider that the plaintiff failed to establish his title independently and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and Others (cited supra) and Manisha Mahendra Gala and Others v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and Others (cited supra).
Telangana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Smt. Revti Jatav vs Smt. Neeta Gupta on 17 April, 2026

(2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 343 : (2013) 180 Comp Cas 258] , this Court again considered the earlier judgments, particularly, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 : (2005) 123 Comp Cas 154] and having noticed that Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani [Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 : (2005) 123 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ALOK KUMAR Signing time: 22-04-2026 02:14:00 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12712 8 FA-1055-2018 Comp Cas 154] relates to power-of-attorney holder under CPC whereas in A.C. Narayanan [A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790 :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Smt. Anita Sonkar vs Smt. Shakuntala Misra on 2 April, 2014

In order to test the submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant in the light of the principal evolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), the Court has perused the statement given by the power of attorney holder before the trial court and has also perused the power of attorney given in favour of the holder. The Court finds that the power of attorney was given to manage, control, supervise and look after all the properties in any State in India belonging to the opposite party. The said power of attorney gave a wide power to the power of attorney holder. The power of attorney holder further deposed that the applicant used to give rent to him and thereafter he used to deposit the same in the account of the opposite party and that when the applicant fell in arrears of rent, the notice terminating the tenancy was issued by the opposite party on the instructions given by him and that the opposite party had signed the notice in his presence. These facts which the power of attorney holder deposed was in his personal knowledge which he could depose since he had performed such acts on behalf of the principal. The Supreme Court has categorically stated that the power of attorney holder may depose for the principal in respect of such acts which he has rendered in pursuance to execution of the power of attorney in his favour, but could not depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. In my opinion, the deposition made by the power of attorney holder clearly indicates that he had deposed only those things for the acts which he had done himself and which had not been done by the principal".
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - A Kumar - Full Document

Achala Jain vs Sanjay Ahuja Prop Of M/S A.B Textiles on 3 June, 2025

71. Since the burden of proving issue no. 1 and 2 was on the plaintiff and Nitish Jain has examined himself as PW-1, vide his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, being Special Attorney of the plaintiff and in view of above discussion and in the light of the law laid down by their Lordship of supreme Court in case Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. Appeal (civil) 6790/2003, this court court is inclined to hold that PW-1 could not depose on behalf of the plaintiff. So, his testimony is not relied upon.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meena Sharma vs Raj Kumar on 14 February, 2024

8. The case of Janki Vashdeo (Supra) on which reliance was placed by both the courts below reaffirms the well settled law that the power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge of. However the said legal position is not attracted to the facts of the case at hand. The question that arises for consideration is that whether what was deposed by the attorney holder, the son of the plaintiff appellant herein, was something that the principal had a personal knowledge of or was relating to some act done by the plaintiff which only he was privy to. The answer to this question is an emphatic no. As is evident from the facts of the case at hand, the suit was instituted to get the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court enforced where the undertaking was given by the father of the appellant not to raise any unauthorized construction and to remove the existing construction which was unauthorized in the said order. Can it be said that the order of the court is something that the principal alone would have personal knowledge of? The order was of the court and the attorney deposing regarding the same is not something to be in his personal knowledge but a fact which has been proved on record.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms. Neelam Ahuja vs R.K. Associates on 28 April, 2026

However, to resolve the controversy with regard to the powers of the General Power of Attorney holder to depose on behalf of the person he represents, this Court upon consideration of all (2005) 2 SCC 217 previous relevant decisions on the aspect including that of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) in A.C Narayan vs. State of Maharashtra concluded by upholding the principle of law laid down in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) and clarified that Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court but he must have witnessed the transaction as an agent and must have due CS DJ 665/2021 28.04.2026 Page no. 22 of 49 Ms. Neelam Ahuja vs. R.K. Associates knowledge about it. The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next