Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Navaneetham vs Dhanaraj on 17 November, 2016 cites

Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006

14. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC 2234 (Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal), AIR 2007 SC 2306 (P.Chandrasekharan and Ors V. S.Kanakarajan and Ors), AIR 2006 SC 1971 (Anil Rishi V. Gurbaksh Singh) and 2010(6) CTC 225 (Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra rep.by s.Ravikumar V. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,). The Counsel for the respondent contended that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, the principles of law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document

P. Chandrasekharan & Others vs S. Kanakarajan & Others on 27 April, 2007

14. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC 2234 (Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal), AIR 2007 SC 2306 (P.Chandrasekharan and Ors V. S.Kanakarajan and Ors), AIR 2006 SC 1971 (Anil Rishi V. Gurbaksh Singh) and 2010(6) CTC 225 (Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra rep.by s.Ravikumar V. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,). The Counsel for the respondent contended that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, the principles of law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 72 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006

14. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC 2234 (Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal), AIR 2007 SC 2306 (P.Chandrasekharan and Ors V. S.Kanakarajan and Ors), AIR 2006 SC 1971 (Anil Rishi V. Gurbaksh Singh) and 2010(6) CTC 225 (Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra rep.by s.Ravikumar V. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,). The Counsel for the respondent contended that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, the principles of law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 391 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1