Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)
Shri Vassudev Nene & Others vs Shri Dattatraya Raghunath Jog on 26 March, 1999 cites

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

8. In fact, the trial Court, after analysing the entire materials on record as regards the lease deed, the entry in the Record of Rights and the statement by the respondent in the earlier suit, had arrived at finding that the presumption under section 105 of the Land Revenue Code in respect of the entry in favour of the respondent was not available. Unless the view taken by the trial Court on the basis of the analysis of the materials on record was so improper that no such view could not have been taken by a man of prudence or that it was so perverse or arbitrary or that it was not borne out from the records, considering that the lower Appellate Court was dealing with the appeal against the discretionary order passed by the trial Court, applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in Wander Ltd. and another v. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp.) S.C.C., 727 it was not possible for the lower Appellate Court to arrive at the finding different from the one by the trial Court solely because some other view was also possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

M/S. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. vs State Bank Of India And Another on 12 December, 1991

In this regard, learned Advocate for the petitioners is well justified in placing reliance upon the judgment in the matter of M/s. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. v. State Bank of India and another, reported in 1993 Bank. J. 287(Del.) : A.I.R. 1992 Delhi, 197. In the said suit, the plaintiff therein had approached the Court seeking relief of permanent injunction along with an application for interim relief without disclosing the fact of filing of two earlier suit which were withdrawn later on. In that regard, the Delhi High Court observed thus:-
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 105 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

Udai Chand vs Shanker Lal & Others on 7 February, 1978

Reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, . In the said decision the Supreme Court revoked the order granting special leave and held that there was a misstatement of material fact and that amounted to serious misrepresentation. The principles applicable are same whether it is a case of misstatement of a material fact or suppression of material fact."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 52 - M H Beg - Full Document

Ram Rattan And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1976

14. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court in the above referred decisions and applying the same to the facts of the case in hand, apart from the certificate of Record of Rights, the respondent have not produced any material on record to establish that the respondent is in lawful possession of the suit property. As already observed above, as far as entry in the Record of Rights is concerned, the same stands rebutted. The conduct of the respondent also does not justify grant of any equitable relief in his favour. In the circumstances, therefore, the lower Appellate Court clearly erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court and by granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent by the impugned order. The impugned order clearly discloses improper exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Appellate Court. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 93 - S M Ali - Full Document

Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. vs Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao on 9 August, 1989

In the matter of Krishna Rama Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao (supra) it was a case where the Apex Court has held that it is a well-settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of property except by recourse to law. It was a case where the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession of premises upon which she had entered as a licensee to conduct the business of restaurant; she was subsequently dispossessed by the licensor unlawfully and in her absence. Immediately thereafter she filed suit for recovery of possession. In that regard, the Apex Court has observed that since the plaintiff was unlawfully dispossessed, it could not be said that the licence expired long back and that the plaintiff being not entitled to renewal of licence could have only asked for damages for unlawful possession. In the background of those facts, the Apex Court had held that the plaintiff being in settled possession, she could not have been dispossessed except by recourse to law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 265 - Full Document
1