Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.87 seconds)Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
In respect of the proceedings in O.S.No.507/2010,
the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in UTTAM SINGH DUGGAL & Co. Ltd. Vs. UNITED BANK
OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2000 (7) SCC 120) (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the learned Trial
Judge took the view that the pre-requisites of Order 12 Rule
6 CPC has been satisfied in this case and that on a plain
93
reading of the resolution of the Board dated 30.05.1990,
there could be no doubt that the petitioner had made a clear,
unambiguous and unconditional acknowledgement of its
liability to the Bank. The object is to enable a party to obtain
speedy judgment of the lis in between the party to the
proceedings. Thus, in the case on hand, the pre-requisites
for an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is satisfied and
hence, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the suit
would not survive as against Defendant Nos.1, 2, 5, 8 and 9.
Hence, the Trial Court had held that in view of the admission
of the plaintiff, the dispute involved in the suit is resolved.
Therefore, both the memo dated 06.12.2018 and I.A.No.12
under Order XII Rule 6 deserved to be allowed. Hence, the
Trial Court held that the suit would not survive as against the
defendants 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 in view of the admission of the
plaintiff and hence the Trial Court had rightly held that no
more dispute subsists between the parties and accordingly,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.507/2010.
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors vs Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan&Anr on 11 March, 2005
54. It is also relevant to refer to a judgment in the case
of CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA AND ORS. VS. KAMAL
SAROJ MAHAJAN AND ORS.( AIR 2005 SC 2765),
wherein it is held thus:
Karam Kapahi & Ors vs M/S Lal Chand Public Charitabl ... on 7 April, 2010
i) KARAM KAPAHI AND ORS V. LAL CHAND PUBLIC
CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS, ((2010) 4 SCC 753))
S.M. Asif vs Virendra Kumar Bajaj on 12 August, 2015
16. The learned counsel for the appellant further
argued that since the respondents themselves have admitted
objections regarding the validity of the compromise petition,
the Court has erred in exercising its discretion under Order
12 rule 6 CPC. The counsel in furtherance of this argument
has relied upon the case of S.M. ASIF V. VIRENDER
KUMAR BAJAJ, ((2015) 9 SCC 287), rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the relevant paragraphs from the above
case are cited thus:
Janardhan Jog vs Srikrishna on 28 March, 1989
In the same context, the learned counsel has
placed reliance on yet another case of this Hon'ble Court in
JANARDHAN JOG VS. SRIKRISHNA, 1989 (3) KAR LJ
65, the relevant paragraphs of the judgement are herein
stated for reference:
Thiru John & Anr vs Returning Officer & Ors on 12 April, 1977
In this regard, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of THIRU JOHN AND
ORS. VS. RETURNING OFFICER AND ORS. (AIR 1977 SC
1724), wherein the relevant portion of the said judgment
reads thus: