Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.65 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969
An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the sub- ordinate court which has no relation to questions of jurisdictions of that court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 C.P.C. Similar view was taken in D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and Ors. (2), and Sher Singh (dead) through LRs. v. Joint Director of Consolidation and Ors. (3).
State Of Rajasthan vs Padmavati Devi (Smt) (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 6 April, 1995
In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Padmavati Devi (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. (5), it was held that claim raising questions involving applicability and interpretation of various law, documents and recording of evidence cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and such questions can be more properly considered in regulation proceedings.
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (6), it was held in a case of termination of the lease that recourse to summary eviction of the lessee under public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act cannot be taken.
Chauthmal vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 2 March, 1966
In Chauthmal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (8), it was held by this Court that 'Nazul' land belonging to Government does not vest in municipality.
Bhavnagar Municipality vs Union Of India And Anr on 17 November, 1989
On the point of limitation another judgment relied upon was delivered in Bhavnagar Municipality v. Union of India and Anr. (10), wherein it was held that the title cannot be proved on the basis of mere evidence of claim for the land made by the plaintiff earlier. Possession and title having not been proved by the plaintiff, it was not necessary for the defendant to plead and prove adverse possession.
M/S. Anamallai Club vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 October, 1996
Sub-section (12) of Section 203 of the Act further provides remedy by way of filing the appeal before the concerned District Judge. The amendments in the provisions of Section 203 of the Act relate only to the enhancement of the punishment which came into effect from 27.8.1991. Thus, the procedure is provided under Section 203 of the Act and no civil suit on behalf of the M.C. was required to be filed. The submission made by learned counsel for the M.C. finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Anamallai's case (supra).
East India Hotels Ltd. vs Syndicate Bank on 12 September, 1991
According to para 6 of this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the procedure prescribed under the Act for taking possession of the land by the Government held in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank (13), as under :-
State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors vs Haji Wali Mohammed And Others on 8 August, 1972
17. Third Point:-According to learned counsel for the petitioner notice was not served upon the petitioner. This objection has already been dealt with while deciding the first point. It was next submitted that no reasonable time was given to the petitioner to submit reply of the notice and to appear before the concerned authority. He placed reliance upon State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. v. Haji Wall Mohammed and Ors. (14), wherein twenty four hours' time to dismantle the building was held to be unreasonable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.