Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.36 seconds)Section 60 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd on 5 July, 2011
In support of his submission he
relied upon Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs Tata Steel Ltd. 2011
(3) Recent Civil Reports 729. In that case the plea of the
CS No. 434/12 19 /25
20
plaintiff was that in meeting held on 9.12.2000 for
reconciling account as on 31.3.1999, defendant admitted
that a sum of Rs. 74,57,074/50 was outstanding to the
plaintiff. In para 6 of the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that the said sum has nothing to do with the
defendant viz Himani Alloys Ltd. In fact the same figured
in minutes of meeting held on 23.02.2009 between
plaintiff and another companies by name Himani Ferro
Alloys Ltd. In para 7 it was observed that the minutes
concluded that final figure will be arrived at the meeting
subsequently when the minutes merely noted certain
figures and stated that they were tentative and both parties
would verify the same and said that final figures would be
arrived at next meeting, after discussion, the court failed
to understand how same could be termed as admission.
M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr on 7 May, 2010
31. Another decision relied upon by the counsel for the
defendant in this regard is Jeevan Diesels and Electricals
Ltd. Vs Jasbir Singh Choudhary (HUF) & Anr. AIR 2010
SC 1980. In para 13 of the cited judgment it has been
observed whether or not there is clear, unambiguous
CS No. 434/12 20 /25
21
admission by one party of the the case or the other party
is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this
question depends on the facts of the case. This question,
namely, whether there is a clear admission or not cannot
be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent.
Vyom Garg & Anr vs M/S Shyam Lal Aggarwal & Sons & Ors on 23 February, 2010
32. On the other hand the counsel for the plaintiff heavily
relied upon Vyom Garg & Anr. Vs Shyam Lal Aggarwal
supra in which decree was passed on admission u/o 12 R
6 CPC.
P.S. Batra vs S. Anoop Singh And Another on 19 November, 2008
34. P.S. Batra Vs S. Anup Singh 155 (2008) DLT 431,
Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Vs United Bank of India
AIR 2000 SC 2740, ITDC Ltd. Vs M/s Chander Pal Sood
CS No. 434/12 21 /25
22
and Sons 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, Rajiv Sirivastava Vs
Sanjiv Tuli 119 (2005) DLT 202 DB, Puja Aggarwal Vs
Scata Incs ( India ) Ltd. 154 (2008) DLT 237, Prem
Narain Mishra Vs Fairey Bros. Exports and Imports Ltd.
126 (2006) DLT 98 are also decision supporting passing of
decree u/o 12 R 6 CPC on the basis of admission.
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
In
Charanjit Lal Mehra Vs Kamal Saroj Mahajan (2005) 11
SCC 279 Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the
observations in Uttam Singh Duggal supra as below:-
Mr. Prem Narain Misra vs Faire Brothers Export And Import Ltd. on 12 July, 2007
34. P.S. Batra Vs S. Anup Singh 155 (2008) DLT 431,
Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Vs United Bank of India
AIR 2000 SC 2740, ITDC Ltd. Vs M/s Chander Pal Sood
CS No. 434/12 21 /25
22
and Sons 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, Rajiv Sirivastava Vs
Sanjiv Tuli 119 (2005) DLT 202 DB, Puja Aggarwal Vs
Scata Incs ( India ) Ltd. 154 (2008) DLT 237, Prem
Narain Mishra Vs Fairey Bros. Exports and Imports Ltd.
126 (2006) DLT 98 are also decision supporting passing of
decree u/o 12 R 6 CPC on the basis of admission.
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors vs Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan&Anr on 11 March, 2005
In
Charanjit Lal Mehra Vs Kamal Saroj Mahajan (2005) 11
SCC 279 Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the
observations in Uttam Singh Duggal supra as below:-