Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.31 seconds)
V.G.Naidu @ Govindasamy Naidu vs Pahlajraj Gangaram @ on 18 March, 2016 cites

Kanakamma vs Kamalan on 14 January, 2000

In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in the altered circumstances, subsequent execution petition is maintainable in law and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in KANAKAMMA v. KAMALAN (2000 (II) C.T.C. 240) in support of such contention. In a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court held in the above decision that the decree holder is entitled to file execution application for every recurring infringement as long as the application was filed within time and therefore it was urged that the decree holder cannot be driven for a second suit. The learned Judge, K. SAMPATH, J. (as he then was) after discussing the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions of both the Apex Court and this Court ultimately reiterated the principles of law on the subject as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lakshmi Narayanan vs S.S.Pandian on 4 September, 2000

(xi) AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2757 (Lakshmi Narayanan vs. S.S.Pandian) The consequence of not having it so recorded is contained in Rule 3 of Order 21 of the C.P.C. Rule 3 prohibits every Court executing the decree from recognising a payment or adjustment which has not been certified or recorded by Court. This decision is not applicable to the fact of this case neither on factual aspect nor on legal aspect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 27 - S S Quadri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next