Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 51 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Smt Karisiddamma W/O Kottambari ... vs Smt Sanna Kenchamma W/O Mesthri ... on 29 July, 2009
To the
same effect is the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Karisiddamma v. Sanna Kenchamma."
Satyawati vs Rajinder Singh And Anr on 29 April, 2013
16. The Supreme Court in Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Sing and Another
{(2013) 9 SCC 491} while dealing the appeal for execution deprecated the
unreasonable delay for the reason that the decree-holder if is unable to
enjoy the fruits, the entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain. The
Supreme Court has thus observed as under in para 12 to 17, which reads
as under:-
Kunwar Jang Bahadur vs The Bank Of Upper India, Limited on 29 March, 1928
Even in 1925, while
quoting the aforestated judgment of the Privy Council in
Kuer Jang Bahadur vs. Bank of Upper India Ltd., the
Court was constrained to observe that:
K.A. Ansari & Anr vs Indian Airlines Ltd on 28 November, 2008
24. The Supreme Court also, in K.A. Ansari v. Indian
Airlines Ltd. has held that : (SCC p.170, para 20)
" 20......Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by
the court, howsoever grave its effect may be, is no answer
for its non-implementation."
M/S. Marshall Sons & Co.(I) Ltd vs M/S.Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. And Anr on 29 January, 1999
14.This Court, again in Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. vs.
Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. was constrained to observe in para
4 of the said judgment that:
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors on 21 August, 2009
15. Once again in Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran
Bubna at para 27 this Court observed as under :