Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.36 seconds)
Sh Vijay Kumar Jain (Since Deseased ... vs Suresh Kumar Jain on 25 July, 2022 cites

Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, post amendment by amending Act, 1976 this Court has held as under: (Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan12, SCC p. 408, paras 21-23) "21. There is yet another provision under which it is possible for the court to pronounce judgment on admission. This is contained in Rule 6 of Order 12 which provides as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 582 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

S.M. Asif vs Virendra Kumar Bajaj on 12 August, 2015

On the issue of discretion of Court to pass judgment on admission, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj11, made the legislative intent clear to use the word „may‟ which clearly stipulates that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 714/2022 Page 8 of 13 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.07.2022 14:55:09 the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the said case, the suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent-Landlord against the Appellant-Tenant. The relationship of tenancy was admitted including the period of Lease Agreement. The Plaintiffs' claim was resisted by the Defendant setting up a plea that the property in question was agreed to be sold by an agreement and the advance of Rs.82,50,000/- was paid. The Defendant in course of taking the defense stoutly denied that Respondent/Plaintiff has continued to be the landlord after entering into Agreement to Sell. The suit for specific performance was also filed which of course was contested by the Plaintiff. In the said case, this Court was of the view that deciding such issues requires appreciation of evidence. Mere relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Resultantly, this Court by setting aside the judgment passed by the High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court subject to deposit of the arrears of the rent and the compensation for use of occupation of the suit premises. Such deposit was subject to final outcome of the eviction as well as suit for specific performance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 99 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Payal Vision Ltd vs Radhika Choudhary on 20 September, 2012

In view of the afore-extracted contention of the respondent that, as the rate of rent was only ₹ 200 per month, the suit was not maintainable as the premises was within the ambit of the DRC Act, the learned Civil Judge has, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal v. UOI3 and Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary4, held that there was no clear and unequivocal admission of liability, by the respondent, as would justify a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 170 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 March, 1998

In view of the afore-extracted contention of the respondent that, as the rate of rent was only ₹ 200 per month, the suit was not maintainable as the premises was within the ambit of the DRC Act, the learned Civil Judge has, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal v. UOI3 and Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary4, held that there was no clear and unequivocal admission of liability, by the respondent, as would justify a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 62 - Full Document
1   2 Next