Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
National Buildings Construction ... vs S. Raghunathan & Ors., S. P. Singh & Ors on 28 August, 1998
National Building Construction Corporation v. S.
Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain
Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra
Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and
State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC
1298.)
Ram Narain Arora vs Asha Rani & Ors on 31 August, 1998
National Building Construction Corporation v. S.
Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain
Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra
Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and
State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC
1298.)
Smt. Chitra Kumari Etc. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 2001
National Building Construction Corporation v. S.
Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain
Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra
Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and
State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC
1298.)
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors on 20 March, 2001
National Building Construction Corporation v. S.
Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain
Arora v. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt. Chitra
Kumari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and
State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC
1298.)
M/S. Atul Castings Ltd vs Bawa Gurvachan Singh on 20 April, 2001
In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR
2001 SC 1684, this Court observed as under: The findings in
the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence
cannot be sustained in law.
Vithal N. Shetti And Anr vs Prakash N. Rudrakar And Ors on 20 November, 2002
(See also: Vithal N. Shetti &
Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18;
Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors.,
(2005) 7 SCC 653; Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. v.
Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252, Rajasthan
Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 2010 SC 2221; Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. &
Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823; and Union of India v. Ibrahim
Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148)".
Devasahayam (D) By Lrs vs P. Savithramma & Ors on 16 September, 2005
(See also: Vithal N. Shetti &
Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18;
Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors.,
(2005) 7 SCC 653; Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. v.
Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252, Rajasthan
Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 2010 SC 2221; Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. &
Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823; and Union of India v. Ibrahim
Uddin & Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 148)".
U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr vs Aziz Ahmad on 20 January, 2009
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has not produced even a
single witness to substantiate the pleadings or the issues. Now the question arises
whether in the absence of any evidence, can the pleadings be the basis for
deciding the suit. The guiding principles in this context were laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in UP State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Aziz
Ahmad I (2009) SLT 587. The relevant para i.e. Para17 is quoted here for the
sake of clarity:
"Pleadings are required to be proved and so long evidence
is not led in support of the pleadings no reliance can be
placed only on the pleadings without there being any
cogent evidence in support of the pleadings. Pleadings are
required to be proved by leading evidence.".