Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.44 seconds)Section 106 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika Choudhary on 20 September, 2012
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. ... on 1 February, 1997
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
Parivar Seva Sansthan vs Dr.(Mrs.) Veena Kalra & Ors. on 7 July, 2000
Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite
the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be
inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a
case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.
Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should
apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is
impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. It was held in Parivar Seva
Sansthan v. Veena Kalra AIR 2000 Del. 349 that Rule 6 of O. 12, Civil P.C. confers
very wide powers on the Court, to pronounce judgment on admission at any stage of the
proceedings. The admission may have been made either in pleadings, or otherwise. The
admission may have been made orally or in writing. The Court can act on such
admission, either on an application of any party or on its own motion without
determining the other questions. This provision is discretionary, which has to be
exercised on well established principles. 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.
Deepak Thirwani And Anr vs Lachman Das Mansharmani on 26 August, 2013
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
K.Kishore & Construction (Huf) vs Allahabad Bank on 28 January, 1998
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr on 7 May, 2010
11. Keeping the above discussed legal proposition in mind if we analysis the facts and
circumstances of the case, no doubt the landlord/ tenant relationship is not disputed and
also there is no dispute regarding rate of rent however, if we go through the pleadings as
a whole defendant has taken a plea that legal notice sent by plaintiff are contradictory
and not correct according to the provisions of law. Moreover, there is dispute as to the
exact area of tenancy. As observed above on one hand plaintiff states in para 3 of the
plaint that only one room with common kitchen of property bearing no.106, Chander
Lok, Pitam Pura, Delhi, was let out but since defendant in her suit for injunction claimed
the tenancy to be consisting of one room, drawing room, kitchen, bathroom with garage
on ground floor and one room, bathroom including cover and open space at first floor.
9
Therefore, plaintiff in order to avoid any contradictory admitted that portion be covered
under tenancy. Since plaintiff himself has not come up with specific case as to how
much is the area of tenancy that being a other disputed question also involved, in such
circumstances discretionary relief of decreeing the suit on alleged admission under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can not be given to the plaintiff, primarily because plaintiff has not
himself made clear as to how much is the area of tenancy. Moreover, tenancy as it may
be has been properly terminated or not in terms of Section 106 of TP Act by alleged two
legal notices dated 04.10.2013 and 13.11.2013. These are question of facts which can be
determined only after taking evidence. So far as judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel
for the plaintiff one of the judgment reference of which must be made at this stage, is of
judgment of Apex Court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs Jasbir Singh Chawla
IV (2010) SLT 306, in which it was observed by Apex Court as:
Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case
of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question
depends on the facts of the case. The question, namely whether there is a clear admission
or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent.
Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. vs M/S. Sundri Apparels (India)Pvt.Ltd. on 24 April, 2012
12. Thus, from that observation itself it is being made clear that question of decreeing
the suit on alleged admission is to be determined only in the light of the pecuniary facts
of that case. In this case when there is dispute of many facts between plaintiff and
defendant and both are practicing advocate I do not find that discretionary relief under
Order 12 rule 6 CPC can be given. So far as judgment reported in Payal Vision Ltd vs
10
Radhika Choudhary 2012 (7)(SC) SLT 303, Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan
Investment Services Pvt. Ltd 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518, Rajpal Singh vs Deen Dayal
Kapil 2014 (207) DLT 651, K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) vs Allahabad bank
1998 (71) DLT 581, Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. Vs Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.
Ltd , 196 (2013) DLT 196 and Deepak Thirwani And Anr. Vs Lachman Das
Mansharmani 2013 VII AD Delhi 53, as relied upon by counsel, without disputing the
ratio of law laid down in those judgment it can safely be stated that all these judgment
are different on all factual background. Therefore, can not be relied upon in the facts of
the present case. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, I find that application of the
plaintiff is also to be dismissed.
1