Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
Sanjay Sethi & Ors. vs Deepak Sethi & Anr. on 20 November, 2013 cites

Jawaharlal Wadhwa And Another vs Haripada Chakroberty on 14 October, 1988

In reply, relying on the decisions in Jawaharlal Wadhwa v. Haripada Chakroberty AIR 1989 SC 606; Gopal Devi v. Kanta Bhati AIR 1994 Delhi 349; Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504; Rajya Tulsibhai Patel v. Benar Enterprise AIR 1988 Guj 42 and Kailash Newar v, Satish Newar 2012 (132) DRJ 460, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Court was required to take into account the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff to conclude whether any cause of action was disclosed for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. It is submitted that with the parties already before the CLB, where the very same issues would be examined, and there was no occasion for the Court to even otherwise entertain the present suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - M H Kania - Full Document

Mrs. Gopal Devi vs Mrs. Kanta Bhatia on 3 May, 1994

In reply, relying on the decisions in Jawaharlal Wadhwa v. Haripada Chakroberty AIR 1989 SC 606; Gopal Devi v. Kanta Bhati AIR 1994 Delhi 349; Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504; Rajya Tulsibhai Patel v. Benar Enterprise AIR 1988 Guj 42 and Kailash Newar v, Satish Newar 2012 (132) DRJ 460, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Court was required to take into account the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff to conclude whether any cause of action was disclosed for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. It is submitted that with the parties already before the CLB, where the very same issues would be examined, and there was no occasion for the Court to even otherwise entertain the present suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Pukhraj D. Jain & Ors vs G. Gopalakrishna on 16 April, 2004

In reply, relying on the decisions in Jawaharlal Wadhwa v. Haripada Chakroberty AIR 1989 SC 606; Gopal Devi v. Kanta Bhati AIR 1994 Delhi 349; Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504; Rajya Tulsibhai Patel v. Benar Enterprise AIR 1988 Guj 42 and Kailash Newar v, Satish Newar 2012 (132) DRJ 460, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Court was required to take into account the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff to conclude whether any cause of action was disclosed for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. It is submitted that with the parties already before the CLB, where the very same issues would be examined, and there was no occasion for the Court to even otherwise entertain the present suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 93 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Rajya Tulsibhai Patel vs Benar Enterprise And Ors. on 29 July, 1987

In reply, relying on the decisions in Jawaharlal Wadhwa v. Haripada Chakroberty AIR 1989 SC 606; Gopal Devi v. Kanta Bhati AIR 1994 Delhi 349; Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504; Rajya Tulsibhai Patel v. Benar Enterprise AIR 1988 Guj 42 and Kailash Newar v, Satish Newar 2012 (132) DRJ 460, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Court was required to take into account the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff to conclude whether any cause of action was disclosed for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. It is submitted that with the parties already before the CLB, where the very same issues would be examined, and there was no occasion for the Court to even otherwise entertain the present suit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Shri Kailash Newar & Anr. vs Shri Satish Newar & Anr on 3 August, 2012

In reply, relying on the decisions in Jawaharlal Wadhwa v. Haripada Chakroberty AIR 1989 SC 606; Gopal Devi v. Kanta Bhati AIR 1994 Delhi 349; Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna AIR 2004 SC 3504; Rajya Tulsibhai Patel v. Benar Enterprise AIR 1988 Guj 42 and Kailash Newar v, Satish Newar 2012 (132) DRJ 460, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 submitted that the Court was required to take into account the averments in the plaint as well as the documents filed by the Plaintiff to conclude whether any cause of action was disclosed for the grant of the reliefs as prayed for. It is submitted that with the parties already before the CLB, where the very same issues would be examined, and there was no occasion for the Court to even otherwise entertain the present suit.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - V K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next