Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 241 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994

Rajdeep Sood vs . Raghbir Singh on 7 July, 2012

18 However, in the present suit, the subsequent purchaser purchased the property by personal volition of the defendant. Plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration of sale deed to be null and void against the proposed defendant. It has been held in Anil Kumar Singh Vs Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC 147, where the plaintiff merely seeks to add the subsequent purchaser as the defendant without challenging the same in his favour or seeking any other relief against him, the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC needs to be allowed. There is no question of the subsequent purchaser not being a necessary or a proper party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement. A plaintiff may choose to adopt independent proceedings against a subsequent purchaser simultaneously or later. Indeed it would be appropriate in most cases to bring a composite suit. It would avoid Contd....P...8 of 11 : 9 :
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendrasinh Bharatsinh Sarvaiya vs Kiritsinh Balvantsinh Jadeja on 21 July, 2003

14.1I have also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANIL KUMAR SINGH VS. SHIVNATH MISHRA (supra), RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND OTHERS (supra) and also J.J. LAL PVT. LTD. VS. M.R. MURALI (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding on me but these principles do not help the case of the respondent.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013

In the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru, 1995 (3) SCC 147, it has been held that since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In this case at paragraph 9, the Supreme Court while deciding whether a person is a necessary party or not in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale made the following observation:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 385 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

M/S Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2022

In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, this Court interpreted Order 1 Rule 10(2) in the following manner: (SCC pp. 149-50, para 7) (Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 08:41:15 PM) (16 of 25) [CW-12253/2019] "7. By operation of the above-quoted rule though the court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party, but the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. To bring a person as party- defendant is not a substantive right but one of procedure and the court has discretion in its proper exercise. The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject-matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

M/S Sunshine India Pvt Ltd vs Bhai Manjit Singh(Huf) & Ors on 3 September, 2013

11. On a careful consideration, we find that there is no conflict between the two decisions. The two decisions were dealing with different situations requiring application of different facets of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1. This is made clear in Sumtibai itself. It was observed that every judgment must be governed and IAs No.17901/2011 & 8859/2012 in CS(OS) 2501/2011 Page 45 of 52 qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found; that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision and that even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect; that there is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. The decisions in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1992 (2) SCC 524] and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [1995 (3) SCC 147] also explain in what circumstances persons may be added as parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - H Kohli - Full Document

Vinayak Land Developers vs Jaysukhlal Chhaganlal Gondaliya on 25 June, 2025

21. On a careful consideration, we find that there is no conflict between the two decisions. The two decisions were dealing with different situations requiring application of different facets of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1. This is made clear in Sumtibai [(2007) 10 SCC 82] itself. It was observed that every judgment must be governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found; that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision and that even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect; that there is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. The decisions in Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:45:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1969/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025 undefined Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay [(1992) 2 SCC 524] and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra [(1995) 3 SCC 147] also explain in what circumstances persons may be added as parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next