Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Williamson Financial Services Limited ... on 14 September, 2023 cites

Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, ... vs Atmaram Kumar on 17 August, 1993

(1974) 1 SCC 242 [Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Ors.] AIR 1980 Del 99 [Smt. Kiran Arora & Ors. vs. Ram Prakash Arora & Ors.] (1988) 1 SCC 270 [Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel] (1993) 4 SCC 6 [Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam vs. Atmaram Kumar] (1993) 1 SCC 581 [Banwari Lal vs. Chando Devi (SMT) (Through LRS.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 47 - S Mohan - Full Document

Banwari Lal vs Smt. Chando Devi (Through L.R.) And ... on 11 December, 1992

(1974) 1 SCC 242 [Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Ors.] AIR 1980 Del 99 [Smt. Kiran Arora & Ors. vs. Ram Prakash Arora & Ors.] (1988) 1 SCC 270 [Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel] (1993) 4 SCC 6 [Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam vs. Atmaram Kumar] (1993) 1 SCC 581 [Banwari Lal vs. Chando Devi (SMT) (Through LRS.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - N P Singh - Full Document

Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973

(1974) 1 SCC 242 [Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram & Ors.] AIR 1980 Del 99 [Smt. Kiran Arora & Ors. vs. Ram Prakash Arora & Ors.] (1988) 1 SCC 270 [Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel] (1993) 4 SCC 6 [Lohia Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam vs. Atmaram Kumar] (1993) 1 SCC 581 [Banwari Lal vs. Chando Devi (SMT) (Through LRS.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 346 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

M/S. Sree Surya Developers And ... vs N. Sailesh Prasad on 9 February, 2022

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the parties to a suit can agree at any stage to resolve the disputes between them to bring the suit in respect of such agreed issues to an end with the passing of a decree. It is also well-settled in law that partial decree in a suit can be passed as also a decree can be passed at different stages of the suit. Although, the out of court settlement can be made orally but the terms thereof as mandated under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC are required to be recorded in writing and placed before the Court, so that a decree can be passed which will not only bind the parties but will have the strength of being enforced. This position of law has been classified in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 (5) SCC 736 [Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs. N. Sailesh Prasad & Ors.] by taking into consideration many earlier judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - M R Shah - Full Document

Abdul Majeed Ganie vs Abdul Rahim Bhat And Others on 14 September, 2022

& Anr.] (2021) 9 SCC 114 [R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Ors.] AIR 2014 Pat 239 [Awadhesh Prasad Sharma vs. Prahlad Prasad Sharma & Ors.] 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 728 [Abdul Majeed Ganie vs. Abdul Rahim Bhat & Ors.] The sum and substance of these judgments is that a contract which is either void or voidable under the provisions of Indian Contracts Act, 1872 cannot be Page 7 of 14 construed to be a lawful agreement under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A of CPC and a compromise should not affect any third party right or create any right or equity in favour or against anyone who is not a party to the compromise and a compromise decree cannot be challenged by filing a separate suit.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document
1