Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.72 seconds)
Akshay Vinimay Llp vs Neeraj Bajoria And Others on 31 March, 2026 cites

The State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bakshish Singh on 8 September, 1998

Despite 21 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 43 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB relying on Bakshish Singh (supra)22, the learned Division Bench unfortunately failed to take into consideration the caution issued therein that the Appellate Court cannot, in the garb of exercise of Order XLI Rule 33, enlarge the scope of the appeal itself and did precisely so by taking into consideration additional materials placed by the appellant before it, which were not available to the Trial Court at the time of passing the order impugned in the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 173 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Ila Bhowmik & Another vs Millenium Road Construction Pvt. Ltd. ... on 29 September, 2011

139. As discussed above, the reliefs sought in the present civil suit are of a much wider spectrum than that in the probate court. The testamentary court‟s jurisdiction is limited to ascertaining whether the Will, of which a probate is sought, was executed in due process of law and proper manner and to ensure that there are no suspicious circumstances shrouding the execution of the same. However, the probate court does not have the power or 37 Ila Bhowmik v. Millennium Road Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 3986 38 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 52 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB jurisdiction to decide title or cancel instruments, the latter being vested exclusively with civil courts.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S K Mukherjee - Full Document

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994

69. However, the RERA aspect of the matter was not at all before the learned Trial Judge at the time of passing the impugned order and as such, there is limited scope of looking into such new facet of the matter at this stage. More importantly, it is rightly argued by the respondent nos.15 to 17 that 13 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, reported at (1994) 4 SCC 225 14 Binod Khanna v. Sunny Sales, reported at 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 10452 15 The Bengal Club Ltd. v. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary, reported at AIR 2003 Cal 96 25 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB the stipulated timeline of three months from the admitted date of commencement of the project had already expired even prior to the passing of the impugned order, thus negating such contention of the appellant Akshay Vinimay LLP as a ground for tilting the balance of convenience and inconvenience in its favour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 434 - S Mohan - Full Document

Binod Khanna vs Sunny Sales & Ors on 14 May, 2014

63. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated January 28. 2026 shows that the same was not passed mechanically. Upon narrating the respective cases of the parties in a nutshell, the learned Trial Judge considered different facets of the matter on balance, which is reflected from the order itself. Upon dealing with the contentions of the parties at length, the learned Trial Judge observed that on an overall consideration of the attending facts and emergent circumstances, the court was of the considered view that at this stage it would be expedient enough to issue an ad interim rule to restrain the defendants from dealing with the suit properties, wherein not only the 12 Binod Khanna v. Sunny Sales, reported at 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 10452 23 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB plaintiff but also the other beneficiaries of the Will have certain right, title and interest and benefit to get, in any manner whatsoever, which would be amounting to creation of third party interest, until adjudication of the disputes raised in the suit. Apart from adverting to the prima facie case made out, the court recorded that there is "imminent necessity" for the issuance of ad interim rule to stop the defendants mentioned therein from dealing with the properties and assets as described in Schedule "A-1" of the injunction application and from dealing with those properties by creating third party rights.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Rabindra Kumar Bharti on 7 April, 2022

Again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated in the said 18 State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, reported at AIR 1999 SC 2626 19 Estern Coalfields Limited v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 445 20 Banarsi and others v. Ram Phal, reported at (2003) 9 SCC 606 42 2026:CHC-AS:515-DB report that the Appellate Court may pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case would require being done, consistently with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. The object sought to be achieved by conferment of such power, it was held, is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in reliefs granted to similarly placed parties and unworkable decrees or orders coming into existence. The overriding consideration was held to be achieving the ends of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - K Joseph - Full Document
1   2 3 Next