Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 11 August, 1995
In support of his contention Mr. Kar referred to another decision R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh. He laid stress on the observations made in paragraphs 8, 13 and 16 of this decision which are quoted hereinbelow for convenience of discussion.
Section 151 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary And Ors. vs Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar And ... on 13 May, 1983
30. Mr. Roychowdhury submitted further that the Court should not allow somebody to make the property irreversible and he submitted that in the instant case if the respondents are allowed to continue with the construction work then ultimately, when the suit will be over the property will be irreversible. Mr. Roychowdhury referred to the decision Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Ors. v. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Ors. etc. Mr. Roychowdhury laid stress on paragraph 6 of this decision which is quoted hereinbelow:
Smt. Usha Ghosh vs Rabindra Nath Das And Others on 19 April, 1991
33. Mr. Roychowdhury then referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court Smt. Usha Ghosh v. Rabidra Nath Das where the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed "even if the Court cannot go beyond the statutory provision when giving possession in execution in excess of decree coupled with police aid supplied by Executive Magistrate renders the process void."
Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006
47. The learned trial Judge when rejecting the application under Order 39, Rule 4 filed by the defendant, appellant herein, did not consider the other application filed by the same defendant under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate, when passing the order of status quo that status is to be decided first i.e. when passing status quo as regards the possession, it is to be decided as to who is in possession, otherwise the purport or implications of the order of status quo fails as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh (supra).
Sri Samir Sobhan Sanyal vs Tracks Trade Private Ltd. & Ors on 16 April, 1996
In this regard Mr. Roychowdhury relied on a decision : Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Anrs. Mr. Roychowdhury submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that "person in possession of the property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law."
1