Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 338 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951

Shri. Haridas Hanmant Kadam vs Shr. Pandurang Wamanrao Kadam And Ors on 7 May, 2024

35. The next decision is of the Apex Court in the case of Bishundeo Narain and Anr. Vs Seogeni Rai and Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that the general allegations are insufficient even to 25 of 27 sa834-2015-f amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched. In the present case, although the Defendant No. 1 has not been established the case of fraud, it needs to be noted that the Plaintiff is seeking specific performance of the contract and only valid and enforceable contract can be ordered to be specifically performed.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

Shri. Haridas Hanmant Kadam vs Shri. Shankar Shripati Kadam (Since ... on 7 May, 2024

35. The next decision is of the Apex Court in the case of Bishundeo Narain and Anr. Vs Seogeni Rai and Ors. (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that the general allegations are insufficient even to 25 of 27 sa834-2015-f amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched. In the present case, although the Defendant No. 1 has not been established the case of fraud, it needs to be noted that the Plaintiff is seeking specific performance of the contract and only valid and enforceable contract can be ordered to be specifically performed.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

Sri. P.Kumaran vs Sri. V.Ramaswami

27. As regards the plea of fraud and damages claimed on the ground of fraud and deceit, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that in the absence of any specific allegations regarding fraud and deceit or coercion, the plaint is liable to be rejected on that ground. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R (38) 1951 Supreme Court 280 in the matter of Bishundeo Narain and another v. Seogeni Rai & others and AIR 1998 AIR SCW 237 in the matter of I.T.C.Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others in support of his contention.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

Vikram Singh & Anr. vs Ajit Inder Singh on 24 February, 2014

23. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue on two fronts. Firstly, with respect to law declared by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as AIR 1951 SC 280 Bishundeo Narain & Anr. vs. Seogeni Rai & Ors. and AIR 2006 SC 3672 Ramesh B.Desai & Ors.vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. i.e. material particulars pertaining to the acts constituting coercion to be pleaded. The learned Single Judge has found no such material particulars stated.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Tarun Singh Saharan vs Meeta Singh & Ors. on 4 April, 2025

18. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that some particulars have been pleaded by the plaintiff and that it would not be for this Court to assess merits of the matter, while adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at this stage. For this, decision of Supreme Court in Kamala v K.T. Eshwara SA & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 661, which was also cited in Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. v Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1612 (supra), is relied upon, in particular para 22, which is extracted as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Dhara Singh vs Sh. Bhim Singh on 2 January, 2016

In the authority cited as AIR (38) 1951 SC 280 titled as Bishundeo Narain & another vs. Seogeni Rai & others., it has been categorically held that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to give the particulars as to the nature of the threat, the circumstances, the date, the time and the place in which it was administered. To my mind, the plaintiff has utterly failed to disclose the abovesaid particulars, either in the plaint or in the evidence by way of affidavit or in the cross­ examination.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupendrakumar R. Parikh And Another vs M.K. Lakshmi And Others on 2 February, 1989

26. The case of the first defendant was that fraud is not a matter of presumption, that no positive act of fraud was alleged and that the allegations made in the plaint were bereft of the essential particulars. Learned counsel for the first defendant reiterated his objections very strongly raised at the time of arguments before the trial Judge. He particularly relied on the following decisions: Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, ; Bira Jena v. Tauli Dei.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next