Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.20 seconds)Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd on 5 July, 2011
19. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the appellants, in
Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (supra) and State Bank of
RCA No. 05/2023 Page 11 of 13
Rahees Ahmad & Ors. vs. Hansa & Ors.
State Bank Of India vs Midland Industries And Ors. on 17 September, 1987
India vs. Midland Industries & Ors, (supra), it has been held that
unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the
discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable
right of a defendant to contest the claim. There is no dispute as to
the legal prepositions propounded in the aforesaid judgments,
however, these judgments do not help the appellants/ plaintiffs.
Firstly, because they are not the defendants and secondly, there is
clear cut admission of the appellants/plaintiffs themselves that they
were not in possession of two rooms on the first floor at the time of
filing plaint and secondly, they have failed to take right steps in
pursuance to direction given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its
order dated 23.07.2018. Hence, these judgments are of no help to
the appellants.
Maharaji Educational Trust And Anr. vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Anr. on 12 January, 2006
20. Coming to judgment of Maharaji Educational Trust &
Anr. vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr. (supra), wherein it has been
held that plaintiff is dominus litus and free to chose his remedy, he
wants in a suit. This judgment does not apply here because Ld.
Trial Court has not asked the plaintiff no.2 to modify relief or
choose their remedy as noted in the order passed and other relief
claimed by the plaintiff no.2/appellant no.2 cannot be allowed to
him as per law.
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1