Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Abdul Shahid S/O Abdul Khaliq Patel vs Smt. Rameshwaridevi Wd/O Gyarsilal ... on 4 March, 2019 cites

Meenakshi Saxena vs Ecgc Ltd(Formerly Known As Export ... on 18 May, 2018

On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner was justified in relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenakshi Saxena .vs. ECGC Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that although the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, but ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 09:58:59 ::: 33 WP1468-17.odt it is the bounden duty of the executing Court to interpret the decree in the process of giving true effect to the decree. In the facts of the present case, a true effect to the decree can be granted only when the executing Court takes up the question of handing over of possession to the petitioner of the entire suit land admeasuring 5149 sq.ft. in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 20 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Y.B. Patil And Ors vs Y.L. Patil on 23 August, 1976

In view of the above, it becomes clear that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on judgments of this Court in the case of Y.B.Patil .vs. Y.L.Patil - AIR 1977 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation .vs. State of U.P. (supra) contending that the principle of res judicata would apply, is wholly misplaced and it cannot be accepted. There is no question of the principle of res judicata applying in the present case on the basis that the decree limited to area of 700 sq.ft. granted in favour of the petitioner estopped him from seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit land admeasuring 5149 sq.ft. This Court finds that the concept of res judicata would not be applicable at all in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - H R Khanna - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 November, 2004

In view of the above, it becomes clear that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on judgments of this Court in the case of Y.B.Patil .vs. Y.L.Patil - AIR 1977 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation .vs. State of U.P. (supra) contending that the principle of res judicata would apply, is wholly misplaced and it cannot be accepted. There is no question of the principle of res judicata applying in the present case on the basis that the decree limited to area of 700 sq.ft. granted in favour of the petitioner estopped him from seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit land admeasuring 5149 sq.ft. This Court finds that the concept of res judicata would not be applicable at all in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 86 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1