Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Ranbir Singh vs Municipal Corporation Rohtak And Ors on 27 May, 2019 cites

Balbir Singh vs Kailash Chander And Another on 18 December, 2013

[7]. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Balbir Singh vs. Kailash Chander and another, 2014(3) PLR 141; Maharana Pratap Nagar Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) and others vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and others, 2014(1) PLR 821; Ram Singh Sharma vs. Smt. Parmod Kumari and anr., 1992 (2) PLR 396 and Amar Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992(1) R.R.R. 42 would not squarely cover the issue in question. The case law cited by learned counsel are on different footings and do not answer the controversy involved in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Maharana Pratap Nagar Kalyan vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Others on 8 October, 2013

[7]. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Balbir Singh vs. Kailash Chander and another, 2014(3) PLR 141; Maharana Pratap Nagar Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) and others vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and others, 2014(1) PLR 821; Ram Singh Sharma vs. Smt. Parmod Kumari and anr., 1992 (2) PLR 396 and Amar Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992(1) R.R.R. 42 would not squarely cover the issue in question. The case law cited by learned counsel are on different footings and do not answer the controversy involved in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Smt. Shayama Jain vs Smt. Savitri Devi And Ors. on 24 April, 2002

[10]. The facts and circumstances of the case titled Smt. Shayama Jain vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and others, 2002(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 645 are near to the facts of the present case. Respondents No.2 to 4 are necessary parties for determination of suit of the plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation as in the absence of respondents No.2 to 4, the lis cannot be adjudicated completely. The rights of respondents No.2 to 4 viz.-a-viz. the street in question are involved in the present case. The 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 23-06-2019 19:05:35 ::: CR No.4926 of 2018 5 blockade/obstacle in the form of triangular shaped encroachment would also materially prejudice the rights of respondents No.2 to 4.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ram Singh Sharma vs Smt. Parmod Kumari And Anr. on 6 March, 1992

[7]. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner viz. Balbir Singh vs. Kailash Chander and another, 2014(3) PLR 141; Maharana Pratap Nagar Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) and others vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and others, 2014(1) PLR 821; Ram Singh Sharma vs. Smt. Parmod Kumari and anr., 1992 (2) PLR 396 and Amar Singh vs. Gram Panchayat, Sabun, 1992(1) R.R.R. 42 would not squarely cover the issue in question. The case law cited by learned counsel are on different footings and do not answer the controversy involved in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1