Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Durga Projects And Infrasturcture ... vs Sri S Rajagopala Reddy on 5 July, 2019

Sunil Mittal And Other vs P.C.Chandan @Prabhu Chandan on 3 August, 2024

Lahore Enamelling and Stamping Co. vs. AK Bhalla, 1958 SCC OnLine Punj 9 paras 35-25; Annada Mohon Roy v. Kina Das, AIR 1924 Cal 394 para 69; Omkar Singh vs. Om Prakash, 2016 SCC OnLine All 3811 paras 22, 26-28; Ram Sumran vs. Sarjoo Pershad, 1928 SCC OnLine Oudh CC 112 para 9 Page 40 of 61; Basawaraj v. Spl. Land Acquisition, (2013) 14 SCC 81 paras 12- 14; Janardhanam Prasad v Ramdas, (2007) 15 SCC 174 para 14; Dahiben v Arvindbhai, (2020) 7 SCC 366 paras 26-27, 29; Metropoli Overseas Limited v HS Deekshit, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15913 paras 7.4-7.5, 16.1-16.9; Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 638 para 26; J. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai, (2022) 12 SCC 128 paras 15-17; Ripu Daman Haryal vs. Geeta Chopra, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2656 para 43; Durga Projects and Infrastructure vs. S. Rajagopala Reddy, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3090 paras 8-9; Joseph Lobo v. Vincent Francis Condillace; Consolidated Engineering CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 46 of 64 Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 159 paras 21-22; and Bakhtawar Singh vs. Sada Kaur, (1996) 11 SCC 167 paras 8-9 99.
Delhi District Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Sathish vs Sri K N Nagaraj on 20 December, 2024

33. M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru v. Sri.S.Rajagopala Reddy and others reported in [(2019) 04 KCCR 3891], the preliminary cause of action had been shown to be 07.11.2019 and last cause of action was shown to be 25.08.2023, it does not necessarily imply that, last cause of action would be the cause of action. Limitation period would commence from the first cause of action. Once limitation period begins, it cannot be stopped by any force except by the force of law. The relief of Declaration sought i.e., the sale deeds are not binding is the primary relief, without the grant of the primary relief the subsequent relief seeking partition and separate possession cannot be granted. Paragraph No.8 of the judgment cited supra is hereunder quoted verbatim for easy reference:
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Smt Ramarathnamma vs Mr Muniraju on 25 June, 2025

4. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment reported in ILR (KAR)-2019-0-4739 in case of Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. S.Rajagopala Reddy, wherein discussed in detail in paragraph No.6 that in the background of well established principle that only plaint must be seen for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a question, whether these two transactions can be considered? would obviously arise. As has been pleaded by the plaintiff, if GPA was the only document that came into existence on 23.01.2002, definitely, the plaintiffs case that they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property becomes an issue to be decided after recording of evidence, if not they must fail at the threshold. Now if para 10 of the plaint is meaningfully read, what the plaintiffs have stated is that GPA is an independent transaction and no consideration was paid for execution of the said GPA. That means they do not want to state anything about agreement of sale and affidavit. The plaint appears to have been drafted cleverly suppressing the material facts.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Giriyappa Alias Giri vs Muneerappa on 15 April, 2026

It is also apt to refer to the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Limited V. Sri. S Rajagopala Reddy and others ILR 2019 KAR 4739, it is held that the plaintiff is bound in law to disclose all the material facts in terms of the Order 6 Rule 2 CPC and omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and such a case plaint becomes bad. If the plaintiff has not disclosed the material facts which are necessary to fetch a relief, then it amounts to non-disclosure of cause of action as distinct from a defective cause of action. In the light of the above principles it is clearly evident that the plaintiff O.S. No.8094/2007 33 has failed to disclose the real cause of action to demonstrate that his legal right to property has been infringed by the defendant no.1 and consequently there is an incomplete disclosure of cause of action in the plaint visa-a-vis the sale deed dated 26.04.1990.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri.Shrikant S/O Dasharath Babagond vs Shri.Mahaveer S/O Dasharath Babagond on 27 September, 2023

i) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal1; ii) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by legal representatives2; iii) P.R. Chenna Reddy Vs. Parvathamma and others3; iv) Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and another4; v) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and others5; vi) M/s. Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sri S. Rajagopala Reddy and others6; 1 2017 (13) SCC 174 2 2020(16) SCC 601 3 2021 SCC OnLIne Kar 15828 4 (2011) 9 SCC 126 5 (2020) 7 SCC 366 6 ILR 2019 KAR 4739 12 vii) Ramisetty Venkatanna and another Vs. Nasyam Jamai Saheb and Others7.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next