Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Chandrakanto Goswami vs Ram Mohini Debi And Ors. on 25 May, 1956

Shri Gagan Preet Singh vs Smt. Gayatri Devi on 16 August, 2012

(5) Cited as 1956 Calcutta 577 ({S} AIR V 43 C 163 Nov.) titled as Chandrakanto Goswami Vs. Ram Mohini Debi and others, wherein it has been held as under:­ "Hindu Law­ Applicability­ Migration­ Presumption as to lex loci­ Nature of­ Migration from U.P. to Bengal­ Applicability of Dayabhaga law­ Burden of proof­ Time of migration­ Necessity to prove­ (Evidence Act (1872), Ss. 114, 101­104), 1920 Cal 335 (AIR V 7), Dissented from."
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Sunil Abraham vs Ms Reeth Devaiah on 21 March, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC:12034-DB MFA No. 488 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 474 of 2025 admission found therein loses its binding nature, is difficult to be accepted for the party making a statement is still bound by it; withdrawal of a suit or a petition only affects its further continuance in the court. Sri. Srivatsa has relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandrakanto Goswami Vs. Ram Mohini Debi and Others (AIR 1956 Cal.577) where it is held that withdrawal of a suit does not destroy the effect of an admission made therein. Therefore mere withdrawal of a suit or any other petition does not have the effect of effacing its contents, but whether to act upon an admission found therein depends on other evidence brought on record, and incidental and other related circumstances.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Sunil Abraham vs Ms Reeth Abraham on 21 March, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC:12034-DB MFA No. 488 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 474 of 2025 admission found therein loses its binding nature, is difficult to be accepted for the party making a statement is still bound by it; withdrawal of a suit or a petition only affects its further continuance in the court. Sri. Srivatsa has relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandrakanto Goswami Vs. Ram Mohini Debi and Others (AIR 1956 Cal.577) where it is held that withdrawal of a suit does not destroy the effect of an admission made therein. Therefore mere withdrawal of a suit or any other petition does not have the effect of effacing its contents, but whether to act upon an admission found therein depends on other evidence brought on record, and incidental and other related circumstances.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1