Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.72 seconds)Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
Learned counsel for
the appellant further adverted to the decision in Balraj
Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan and Anr., 1999 (8) SCC 396
in which the court was concerned with a case of the effect
of not filing a written statement and whether a decree could
be passed only on that basis.
Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958
That was a suit for specific
performance and it was held it could not be granted without
even writing a detailed judgment and adverted to various
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and reference was made
to Order XII Rule 6 by way of analogy and referred to the
dictum in Razia Begum V. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, 1959 SCR
111, to state that Order XII Rule 6 should be read along
with proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC. In that case, what
was noticed was that in cases governed by Section 42 and
Section 43 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the court is not
bound to grant declaration prayed for on the mere admission
of the claim by the defendant if the court has reason to
insist upon a clear proof apart from admission. The result
of a declaratory decree confers status not only on the
parties but for generations to come and so it cannot be
granted on a rule of admissions and, therefore, insisted
upon adducing evidence independent of the admission. That
is not the position in the present case at all. We fail to
see how this decision can be of any use to the petitioner.
The decision in re Pandam Tea Co. Ltd., AIR 1974 Calcutta
170 pertains to the manner in which the balance sheet should
be read and has no bearing on the case.
Shikharchand And Ors. vs Mst. Bari Bai And Ors. on 12 September, 1973
The decision in
Shikharchand & Ors. vs. Mst. Bari Bai & Ors., 1974
M.P.75, is to the effect that the Rule is wide enough to
afford relief not only in cases of admissions in pleadings
but also in the case of admission de hors pleadings. State
Bank of India vs. M/s Midland Industries & Ors., AIR 1988
Delhi 153, and Union of India vs. M/s Feroze & Co., AIR
1962 J & K 66 cannot have any relevance because the facts in
arising cases and the present case are entirely different.
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
In Nagubai Ammal (supra) which
is locus classicus on the subject states that merely because
a written admission made in a different context, such
admission may not become relevant if the party making it has
a reasonable explanation of that. But that is not the
position in the present case at all.
Section 23 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1