Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Bajpai vs Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai on 17 October, 2003
The appellant should have file application for
maintenance against her husband under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (in short 'DV Act'). Appellant
has no ownership right in the suit property. Learned trial court had
dismissed interim injunction application by reasoned order and therefore,
appeal may be dismissed. Learned counsel have referred judgments i.e.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1198;
Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Ranjana Bajpai, 2003 LawSuit (All) 1031;
Morgan Stanley Fund; Arvind Gupta v. Kartik Das; Securities and
Exchange Board of India, 1994 LawSuit(SC) 549 and Burn Standard
Company Limited v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 1995 LawSuit (SC) 545.
Satish Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wps/4254/2018 ... on 2 July, 2018
The appellant should have file application for
maintenance against her husband under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (in short 'DV Act'). Appellant
has no ownership right in the suit property. Learned trial court had
dismissed interim injunction application by reasoned order and therefore,
appeal may be dismissed. Learned counsel have referred judgments i.e.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1198;
Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Ranjana Bajpai, 2003 LawSuit (All) 1031;
Morgan Stanley Fund; Arvind Gupta v. Kartik Das; Securities and
Exchange Board of India, 1994 LawSuit(SC) 549 and Burn Standard
Company Limited v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 1995 LawSuit (SC) 545.
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors vs Shri Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr on 21 April, 1995
The appellant should have file application for
maintenance against her husband under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (in short 'DV Act'). Appellant
has no ownership right in the suit property. Learned trial court had
dismissed interim injunction application by reasoned order and therefore,
appeal may be dismissed. Learned counsel have referred judgments i.e.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1198;
Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Ranjana Bajpai, 2003 LawSuit (All) 1031;
Morgan Stanley Fund; Arvind Gupta v. Kartik Das; Securities and
Exchange Board of India, 1994 LawSuit(SC) 549 and Burn Standard
Company Limited v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 1995 LawSuit (SC) 545.
Rajni Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh 27 Wpc/225/2018 ... on 29 January, 2018
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the appeal preferred on behalf of
the appellant-plaintiff against the respondents-defendants under Order
XLIII read with Sub Rule (R) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
MCA DJ/1/2020 Rajni v. Ram Prakash & Ors. 1
(hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') against the order dated 07.01.2020
passed by the learned ASCJ-cum JSCC-cum GJ, South District, Saket
Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 1218/2019 titled as 'Rajni v. Ram Prakash
& Ors.' whereby application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed
on behalf of the appellant for grant of ex-parte interim injunction was
dismissed.
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Ram Sukhi Devi on 5 October, 2004
The appellant should have file application for
maintenance against her husband under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (in short 'DV Act'). Appellant
has no ownership right in the suit property. Learned trial court had
dismissed interim injunction application by reasoned order and therefore,
appeal may be dismissed. Learned counsel have referred judgments i.e.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, 2004 LawSuit (SC) 1198;
Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Ranjana Bajpai, 2003 LawSuit (All) 1031;
Morgan Stanley Fund; Arvind Gupta v. Kartik Das; Securities and
Exchange Board of India, 1994 LawSuit(SC) 549 and Burn Standard
Company Limited v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, 1995 LawSuit (SC) 545.
Molay Kumar Acharya vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, W.B. ... on 12 October, 2007
In Molay Kumar Acharya (supra),
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed that no one in the modern days can
survive without Electricity, and therefore, the right to Electricity is also a
right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.