Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Sukhbir Singh & Ors vs Brij Pal Singh & Ors on 10 May, 1996
In this context, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan appearing for the respondent relies upon a decision of Honourable Supreme Court (1997) 2 SCC 200 [Sukhbir Singh and others v. Brij Pal Sing and others] in which it is held that the conduct of parties in waiting the office of the Sub-Registrar to have the sale deed executed is a positive fact to prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration. The following is the operative portion of the judgment:-
S. Santha Rajagopal vs T. Sadasivam on 21 December, 2009
9. The learned counsel for the appellants Mrs.P.T.Asha would contend that in order to show the plaintiff was having ready money in his hands he has to produce documentary evidence, though he need not carry the money with him always. Following is the operative portion of the judgment of this Court delivered by B.Rajendran.J, reported in [2010[ 3 MLJ 1189 [S. Santha Rajagopal v. T.Sadasivam and others] in which the following is the relevant passage:
Coromandel Indag Products(P) Ltd vs Garuda Chit & Trading Co. P. Ltd & Anr on 16 August, 2011
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also cited a decision in 2011(8) SCC 601 [Coromandel Indag Products Pvt. Ltd., v. Garuda Chit and Trading Company Private Limited and Another] wherein it is observed as follows:
1