Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)Section 85 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
The Wakf Act, 1995
Section 83 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari on 28 October, 2021
28. The controversy in question has already been put to rest by the
Supreme Court in the case of Rashid Wali Beg Vs. Farid Pindari and
others reported in (2022) 4 SCC 414 and has held as under:
Section 51 in The Wakf Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Ram Singh & Ors vs Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan & Ors on 22 September, 1986
In case of Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4
SCC 364, the Apex Court has observed and held that when the suit is
8
barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that
provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those
circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.
Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998
In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC
184, it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be
seen to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC
137, the Apex Court held thus:
Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors on 29 April, 2008
In Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara; (2008) 12 SCC 661, the Apex Court
examined the ambit of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and observed: