Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.54 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Roop Kumar vs Mohan Thedani on 2 April, 2003
26. There is no dispute, as indeed there cannot be, about the propositions canvassed by learned Counsel for Poysha inasmuch as they are supported by decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. Yet, it is not possible to overlook the law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of nominal transactions or transactions that are not intended to be acted upon.
Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959
27. As far back as in 1960 the Supreme Court in Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors. observed in paragraph 5 of the Report as follows:
Gangabai W/O Rambilas Gilda vs Chhabubai W/O Pukharajji Gandhi on 6 November, 1981
In Smt. Gangabai v. Smt. Chhabubai the Supreme Court considered the effect of Section 92(1) of the Evidence Act and held in paragraph 11 of the Report as follows:-
Anand Prasad Agarwalla vs Tarkeshwar Prasad And Ors on 9 May, 2001
22. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court in Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad (2001) 5 CC 568 that at the stage of temporary injunction, it would not be appropriate to hold a mini-trial. But at the same time, it cannot be disputed that it is necessary to have all the facts on record to understand the controversy between the parties.
Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Sohan Lal (Dead)By Lrs on 29 November, 1999
30. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal where the Supreme Court referred to Gangabai and accepted the position that it is permissible to adduce oral evidence to show that a document is a sham document or a nominal document. However, on the facts of that case it was held that cogent evidence in this regard was lacking.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Hindu Public & Another Etc vs Rajdhani Puja Samithee & Others Etc on 16 February, 1999
In Hindu Public and Anr. v. Rajdhani Puja Samithee and Ors. the Supreme Court observed, in paragraph 20 of the Report, as follows:-