Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
K.Sathishkumar vs A.S.Manickkam on 18 March, 2016 cites

Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Air India on 1 December, 1996

Admission must be clear and unequivocal; it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the documents only for delaying trial being barred by the Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act or other statutory provisions, can be ignored. These principles are well settled by catena of decisions. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.R's) Vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.R's) ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air India ; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518; Abdul Hamid Vs. Charanjit Lal & Ors. 1998 Vol.2 DLT 476 and Lakshmikant Shreekant Vs. M N Dastur & Co.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 37 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Abdul Hamid & Ors. vs Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. on 26 May, 1998

Admission must be clear and unequivocal; it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the documents only for delaying trial being barred by the Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act or other statutory provisions, can be ignored. These principles are well settled by catena of decisions. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.R's) Vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.R's) ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air India ; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518; Abdul Hamid Vs. Charanjit Lal & Ors. 1998 Vol.2 DLT 476 and Lakshmikant Shreekant Vs. M N Dastur & Co.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1