Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Budh Ram & Ors vs Bansi & Ors on 5 August, 2010

Man Chandak Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Dilip Mangilal Jain on 11 November, 2013

In the circumstances though I see much substance in the 20/21 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:32:00 ::: kpp 21 nms 1213/2013 submission advanced on behalf of the Plaintiffs that in view of the stand taken by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs who hold 98.99 per cent share in the property are not in a position to develop its property admeasuring 57,601.43 sq. mtrs., thereby frustrating the entire project of the Plaintiffs and is causing grave hardship to the Plaintiffs, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budh Ram and others vs. Bansi and others (supra) interim reliefs cannot be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs in terms of prayer clauses
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Kullappa S/O Chikkayellappa vs Smt. C P Vijayalakshmi D/O ... on 1 June, 2018

7. Similar view is also followed in other judgments. However, when it comes to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in one of the recent matters which is cited in this proceedings namely, in the matter of Budh Ram and others v. Bansi and others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 476, at paragraph-17, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed the following point, which is answered in the affirmative, it reads as under;
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - S Satyanarayana - Full Document

Nasreen Khan vs . Sarbati Devi & Ors. on 30 October, 2017

6. The decree holder has not disputed that the JD no. 3, Sh. Dal Chand, who was defendant no. 3 in the main suit expired on 08.12.2012. If a defendant expires during the proceedings of the suit and his/her legal- heirs are not brought on record as provided under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, then the suit becomes abated. The decree holder being plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant no. 1 to 5. The defendant no 3 died on 08.12.2012 i.e. during the pendency of the suit. As the legal-heirs of defendant no. 3 were not brought on record nor the factum of death of defendant no. 3 was brought on record, therefore, the suit abated against defendant no. 3. However, as it was a suit for recovery 3 of a certain sum of money from all the defendants, therefore, on the death of defendant no. 3 and as his legal-heirs were not brought on record, therefore, the liability of the remaining defendants cannot be ascertained and accordingly, the suit got abated against all the defendants. Reliance can be placed on Budh Ram & Ors. Vs. Bansi & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 476 wherein it has been held that where each one of the parties has an independent and distinct right of his own, not in inter dependent upon one or the other, nor the parties have conflicting interests inter se, the appeal may abate only qua the deceased respondent. However, in case, there is a possibility that the court may pass a decree contradictory to the decree in favour of the deceased party, the appeal would abate in toto for the simple reason that the appeal is a continuity of suit and the law does not permit to contradictory decree on the same subject matter in the same suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dlf Homes Rajapura Pvt. Ltd vs Late O.P. Mehta & Anr. on 11 July, 2022

14. Without prejudice, it was contended that, even otherwise, IA 18591/2019 for substitution of the legal representatives of Respondent 1 had been filed after a delay of 607 days, and no sufficient cause explaining such delay was to be found in IA 19644/2020, which sought condonation thereof. IA 19644/2020, therefore, it was submitted, deserved to be dismissed and consequently, IA 18591/2019 would also not survive for consideration. The petitioner relied, in support of the aforesaid contentions, on the decisions in Budh Ram v. Bansi6 and Gurnam Singh v. Gurbachan Kaur7.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Suren Prasad Jaiswal @ Suren Jaiswal vs Santibai Jaiswal And Others ... Opp. ... on 3 February, 2012

4. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Budh Ram & Ors. V. Bansi & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 5071, it was argued that abatement takes place automatically by application of law without any order of the Court. Setting aside of abatement can be sought once the suit stands abated. Abatement in fact results in denial of hearing of the case on merits. The co-owner of the property owns every part of the composite property along with other side and he cannot be held to be fractional owner of the property unless partition takes place. Courts will not proceed with an appeal when success of appeal may lead to Court's coming to decision which may be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and deceased respondent and therefore it would lead to Court's passing a decree which will be contrary to the decree which had become final.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Kausalyabai Kisan Chavan vs Sakharam Namdeo Gaikwad on 13 July, 2012

The learned senior counsel also invited my attention to the orders passed by this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:48:57 ::: 26 WP.156.89 th Civil Application No.3454 of 2011, which was filed on 15 March, 2011. It is submitted that, though the Civil Application No.363 of 2011 was th allowed by this Court on 8 July, 2011, till the July, 2012, there was a long intervening period of one year. During this entire period of one year, the Petitioner continued default in not furnishing copies for completing service on legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2 even though, the Petitioner had knowledge, the names and address of the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2, with a categorical statement that, at the risk of the Petitioner, the writ petition may be heard without making compliance about the service of the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that, considering the judgment in the matters of Budh Ram Vs. Bansi, reported in [ (2010) 11 SCC 476 (15 & 20) ], the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2094 of 1990, Dhondiram Narayan Halve and others Vs. th th Pandurang Bhagwant Naik and others dated 17 / 18 January, 2011 has held that, in such situation, the petition in its entirety has to be dismissed. It is submitted that, since the legal representatives of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:48:57 ::: 27 WP.156.89 deceased Respondent No.2 are not served, therefore, this is a fatal flaw in the petition, it goes to the root of the matter and on this issue alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel also submitted that, the Respondents are seriously disputing the alleged sale agreement. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Municipal limits are extended and property in dispute is brought within the Municipal limits. This has no effect of challenging Forum or in any way an effect on merits of the matter. The Forum of adjudication has to be decided on the basis of circumstances prevailing as on the date of initiation of the proceedings. Inclusion of the properties in question within Municipal limit would give advantage to the landlord, if the landlord was to initiate further proceedings of eviction flowing from applicability of Section 43-C. The said section also, excludes applicability of Sections 32 to 32R of the Tenancy Act which has effect of transferring ownership from landlord to the tenant by operation of law.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next