Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.31 seconds)U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
Section 210 in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 229B in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Babu Lal Tewari vs Deputy Director Of ... on 11 January, 2010
The petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands. Very conveniently, the petitioners have not annexed the relevant material along with the writ petition. The stay order was obtained by misleading the Court that the appeal at the instance of the respondent no.4 was not maintainable before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. This issue was decided conclusively in this very litigation between the parties by this Court in the writ petition No.17788 of 1984: Sri Babu Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others on 4th of December, 1984. In all fairness, the petitioners ought to have disclosed this fact in the present writ petition. They intentionally withheld the said judgement and by misleading the Court obtained exparte stay order on same very ground which was repelled earlier. There are catena of decisions that in such circumstances a writ should not be issued.
Raj Lakshmi Dasi And Others vs Banamali Sen And Othersbholanath Sen ... on 27 October, 1952
The expression 'title' in section 11 refers to capacity or interest of a party. It has nothing to do with the particular cause of action on which he sues or is sued. The base of res judicata as held by the Apex Court in Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others, AIR 1953 SC 33 and Kadapurath Illam Khalid Vs. Beemapura Palamkakkada Sulekha and others, AIR 1986 Keral 251 (FB) is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases.
Kadapurath Illam Khalid vs Beemapura Palamkakkada Sulekha And ... on 5 September, 1986
The expression 'title' in section 11 refers to capacity or interest of a party. It has nothing to do with the particular cause of action on which he sues or is sued. The base of res judicata as held by the Apex Court in Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others, AIR 1953 SC 33 and Kadapurath Illam Khalid Vs. Beemapura Palamkakkada Sulekha and others, AIR 1986 Keral 251 (FB) is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases.
Sunderabai W/O Devrao Deshpande And ... vs Devaji Shankar Deshpande on 3 October, 1952
Where the right claimed in both the suits is the same, the subsequent suit would be barred as res judicata though the right in the subsequent suit is sought to be established on a ground different from that in the former suit as held by the Apex Court in Sunderabai and another Vs. Devaji Shankar Deshpande, AIR 1954 SC 82.
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
Reference can be made to a recent decision in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 paragraph 7 in particular.