Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.33 seconds)
Thazhapattathillath Krishnan ... vs T.Damodaran Namboodiri on 24 February, 2005 cites

Sujit Pal vs Prabir Kumar Sun And Ors. on 2 September, 1985

v.@@ EEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE S.Suppiah (AIR 1975 Madras 270) and in Surjit Pal v.@@ EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEE Prabir Kumar Sun (AIR 1986 Cal. 220) wherein it was held@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE that where the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff in violation of the order of injunction and took possession of the property, the Court has ample jurisdiction to prevent the decree being flouted and to do justice to the parties by putting back the plaintiff in possession of the property. It was held that:
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 71 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Century Flour Mills Ltd. vs S. Suppiah And Ors. on 11 March, 1975

48); Magna and another v. Rustam and another (AIR 1963@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Rajasthan 3); Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun and others@@ EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (AIR 1986 Calcutta 220); Delhi Development Authority v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another ((1996) 4@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SCC 622); Ajayakumar v. Damayanthi (2004 (2) KLT 48);@@ EEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S.Suppiah and others (AIR@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 1975 Madras 270); Parukutty Amma v. Thankamma Amma (1988@@ GGGGGGGGGGGGGG EEEEEEEEEEEEEE (1) KLT 883); State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and others (AIR 1968 SC 647); Thukalan Poulo Avira v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mar Basselios Gheevarghese and another (AIR 1954 TRA.CO.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 130 - Full Document

Parukutty Amma vs Thankam Amma on 5 February, 2004

48); Magna and another v. Rustam and another (AIR 1963@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Rajasthan 3); Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun and others@@ EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (AIR 1986 Calcutta 220); Delhi Development Authority v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another ((1996) 4@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SCC 622); Ajayakumar v. Damayanthi (2004 (2) KLT 48);@@ EEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S.Suppiah and others (AIR@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 1975 Madras 270); Parukutty Amma v. Thankamma Amma (1988@@ GGGGGGGGGGGGGG EEEEEEEEEEEEEE (1) KLT 883); State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and others (AIR 1968 SC 647); Thukalan Poulo Avira v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mar Basselios Gheevarghese and another (AIR 1954 TRA.CO.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

The State Of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra And Ors on 7 November, 1967

48); Magna and another v. Rustam and another (AIR 1963@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Rajasthan 3); Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun and others@@ EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (AIR 1986 Calcutta 220); Delhi Development Authority v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another ((1996) 4@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SCC 622); Ajayakumar v. Damayanthi (2004 (2) KLT 48);@@ EEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S.Suppiah and others (AIR@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 1975 Madras 270); Parukutty Amma v. Thankamma Amma (1988@@ GGGGGGGGGGGGGG EEEEEEEEEEEEEE (1) KLT 883); State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and others (AIR 1968 SC 647); Thukalan Poulo Avira v.@@ EEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mar Basselios Gheevarghese and another (AIR 1954 TRA.CO.@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 962 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Ram Charan Sikdar vs Sm. Jogamaya Basu And Anr. on 17 August, 1977

15. Sri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather, learned counsel for the decree holders, on the other hand, contended that the executing court has ample power and jurisdiction to pass any order to see that the decree is enforced and implemented and also obeyed by the judgment debtors. He contended that even if the decree is only for a permanent prohibitory injunction, if the judgment debtors therein gain possession of the decree schedule property by violating the decree, they are liable to be expelled by the order of the executing court under Order XXI Rule 32 or by invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that a decree passed by the Court is liable to be obeyed and not violated and that the Court cannot countenance any technical arguments, which would have the result of defeating the decree passed by it. He cited the decisions in Ram Charan Sikdar v. Sm. Jogamaya Basu and@@ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE another (AIR 1978 Calcutta 193); Hari Nandan Agrawal and@@ EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE another v. S.N.Pandita and others (AIR 1975 Allahabad@@ EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next