cites: 109189136

Rau Rama Atkile vs Tukaram Nana Atkile on 2 September, 1938

Rau Rama Atkile Vs. Tukaram Nana Atkile reported in AIR 1939 Bom 149 held that rights acquired by prescription like right of light could not be taken away by the sanction of a building plan in favour of another. The common law, unless expressly taken away by statute continues to be applicable.

Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 497050

1. M/S Kalitara Foods Private Ltd. ... vs The Divisional Manager, Oriental ... on 23 April, 2014

Lord Earl of Halsbury L.C delivering the first judgment referred to a case decided by Lord Hardwicke in 1752, Fishmonger's Co. Vs. East India Company reported in (1752) 1 Dick 163. In that case it was spelt out that to found an action on diminution of light, actionable nuisance had to be established. His lordship opined that a town dweller could not expect to receive as much light as a village dweller. The test was nuisance.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jotindra Mohan Mitter vs Probodh Kumar Dutt on 8 May, 1931

Jotindra Mohan Mitter Vs. Probodh Kumar Dutt reported in AIR 1932 Cal 249 held that an easement right exercised openly though not consciously conferred those rights upon a person.

Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad vs Purushottam on 5 April, 1971

It also approved another passage in the 1904 judgment that the light must be sufficient according to the views of the ordinary people for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the dwelling house or of a room in it. He next cited Chapsibhai Dhanjibhai Danad Vs. Purushottam reported in AIR 1971 SC 1878.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

He also referred to some cases on Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He cited T. Arivandandam Vs. V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421 in which Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer opined that the plaint must be read " meaningfully". If it was found that an " illusion" of a cause of action was created by " clever drafting", the suit should be " nipped in the bud".

Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997

The same principle was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And Others reported in (1998) 2SCC70 where the Supreme Court through Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao remarked that " a clear right to sue should shown in the plaint".

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 509 - M J Rao - Full Document

India Carbon Limited vs Ganesh Prasad Singh on 29 September, 2011

I was also referred to India Carbon Limited Vs. Ganesh Prasad Singh reported in 2012 (1) CHN 152.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - D Datta - Full Document

Sri Prabir Guha And Ors vs Sri Uttam Chand Surana And Anr on 1 April, 2011

Citing Bhupati Bhusan Mondal Vs. Jadunath Ghosal reported in AIR 1955 Calcutta 70 Para 9 and 41 and my judgment in Prabir Guha Vs. Uttam Chand Surana reported in 2011 (2) CHN 665, he submitted that although the Indian Easement Act, 1882 did not apply to Bengal, these decisions held that the principles of the Act were applicable here.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003

Mr. Chowdhury cited Liverpol & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512, which stated that it was to be seen when the averments in the plaint are taken to be correct, whether a decree could be passed.

Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 607 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results