Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David on 19 February, 2020

Hari Dev Diwedi And Others vs Gauri on 10 March, 2021

possession till the suit land is partitioned and for restraining the defendants from getting the amount lying in the accounts of her father released in their favour on the basis of the will. The alternative decree prayed by her is also for joint possession. In the instant case, respondent/plaintiff is not even seeking cancellation of any deed executed by her. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners are not applicable to the fact situation of instant case. Therefore, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2010) 12 SCC 112, titled Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh Versus Randhir Singh and others, as considered in AIR 2020 SC 1372, titled Agra Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David and others, in my considered view, the learned Trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application moved by the defendants praying for rejection of the plaint on account of affixing less Court Fee. Plaintiff had neither claimed the amount through the Court nor from the defendants or from the Bank. Here it will also be appropriate to take note of ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2021 20:15:26 :::HCHP 20 Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, invoking which, the defendants had prayed for rejection of the plaint.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J R Dua - Full Document

Unknown vs Diwakar Jaguri on 23 March, 2022

In the case of Agra Diocesan Trust Association (supra), the Supreme Court held that it is evident from the discussion that it is undisputed that the point in issue was with respect to valuation for purposes of court fee, equally it is not in issue that since the plaintiff (i.e. petitioner herein) sought, in addition to a declaration, in both the suits, decrees of cancellation, the crucial point was what the correct value for purposed of court fee was. Now, market value has been specifically defined, in the context of a litigation like the present one. According to Section 7(iv-A), in case the plaintiff (or his predecessor-in title) was not a party to the decree or instrument, the value was to be according to one-fifth of the value of the subject matter, and such values shall be deemed to be under Section 7(iv-A), if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree is passed or the instrument executed. Importantly, the explanation to Section 7(iv-A) created a deeming fiction as to what constitutes the value of the property by saying that in the case of immovable property the value shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with the sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be. In that case, the plaintiff contended that the value determinable in terms of clause (v) of Section 7, by reason of Section 7(iv-A). Section 7(v)(i) contains two clauses-(a) and (b); both are in respect of revenue paying lands, therefore, the petitioner valued its suits on the basis of revenue which according to it was payable, While so stating, Page No. 7 of 9 the value (for purposes of court fee) was determined to be Rs. 3000/- in each suits.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S K Mishra - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs And Ors on 12 July, 2024

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/07/2024 at 22:09:10 transparency of such evaluations. Further, relying upon judgments of Supreme Court in Agra Diocesan Trust Association v. Anil David and Ors.4 and ITC Limited vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Ors.5, the Petitioner seeks to canvas the difference between market value and the circle rate.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Hon'Ble Alok Kumar Verma vs Anil David And Others" on 7 January, 2023

The present proposed Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 22.09.2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 02 of 2017, "Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs. Anil David and Others", by which, the learned Trial Court has directed marking of exhibit on the document bearing Paper No. 273C, Deed of Appointment of New Trustees, filed by the plaintiff, and, has rejected the objections, taken by the present revisionist-defendant no. 3 against the same.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Verma - Full Document

Sanatan Dharam Sabha And Others vs Jagdish Rai Kansal And Others on 23 February, 2023

That being so, the next question comes as to how, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2811-2813-2020 titled as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh and others, decided on 29.03.2010 and Civil Appeal No.1722-2020 titled as Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs. Anil David and others decided on 19.02.2020, respondent is liable to pay court fee when concededly he was not a party to the said sale deed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document
1