Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 226 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And Others on 14 March, 2008

Jarnail Singh vs Emerging Valley Private Ltd. on 1 August, 2022

11. That the proceedings which were initiated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were just to secure the presence of the applicant/JD. Once the said purpose is achieved and the applicant/JD is showing his bonafide by trying hard to fulfill his commitments even when he is in custody keeping in view the conduct of the applicant/JD in the interest of justice the properties of the applicant/JD may be deattached and property should be restored according to the judgment laid down in the matter of "Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel 2008(4) SCC 649". It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant/JD is ready to furnish the requisite bail bonds to the entire satisfaction of Hon'ble Commission. It was also observed that once the accused is absconded and declared proclaimed offender and his property is attached thereafter if accused surrendered then in that case the properties which have been attached by the court the same should be restored as provisions of Cr.P.C. do not provide sale of the property. Once the accused surrendered then his no longer an absconder and accordingly the properties which have been attached for procuring his presence same be restored and deattached....."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhika Narang & Ors. vs Kuldeep Narang & Anr. on 16 January, 2009

Mr. Sundaram has sought to rely upon subsequent Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel (Supra) to contend that Ravi Singhal and Krishna Madhav Ghule were wrongly decided and stood overruled by the subsequent aforementioned Supreme Court's judgment. We find that subsequent Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment does not expressly overrule either the earlier Bombay or our own Division Bench's judgment. We are further of the opinion that this issue needs to be decided first by the learned Single Judge as any decision rendered by us would deprive either the Appellants/plaintiffs or Respondents to a right of appeal and moreso when we are of the view that Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 2 could not have been deleted at this stage of the proceedings.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Manmohan - Full Document

Gargi Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 22 May, 2026

"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Gargi Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 22 May, 2026

"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Gargi Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 22 May, 2026

"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Gargi Dash vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 22 May, 2026

"96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Mishra - Full Document

Divya vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 April, 2023

(ii) In Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel (supra), it was held that it was not necessary for a woman to establish a physical act of living in the shared household at the time of institution of the proceedings. And that she would be entitled to a protection under Section 17 of the Act as a consequence to the relationship of marriage. The status of marriage gave the wife the right to live in the shared household and therefore "her entry into the household is as a matter of right, whether the exercise of such right happened on 13th June 2007 or on any other date, forcibly or otherwise".
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next