Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)
Raj Rani vs Rakesh Kumar Goyal on 2 November, 2000 cites

Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury vs Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho on 19 November, 1947

In this behalf, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Nisha Kanto Roy Chowdhury v. Smt. Saroj Bashini Goho, A.I.R. 1948 Calcutta 294, wherein it has been held that an undertaking given by one party to the other did not mean a promise made to the Court. Such an undertaking can be considered to be merely by one party to the other and the nature of the compromise/undertaking would not change merely because the undertaking is accepted by the Court and the decree is passed in its terms.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 September, 1994

The reliance by the learned counsel for the respondent on Niaz Mohammed's case (supra) is wholly misconceived. In the aforesaid case, the respondent had not accepted any liability. The liability of the respondent was created as a consequence of the decision rendered by the Apex Court. The liability was substantial i.e. a sum about of Rs. 28 crores. The respondent had no resources to shoulder the aforesaid responsibility immediately. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 20 crores out of the total liability of Rs. 28 crores stating that whatever was available was paid. The position in the instant case is different. No liability was created on the respondent by the Court. The liability to pay cost for education of his daughter in the boarding school was accepted by the respondent uni-laterally in his undertaking/statement made before the District Judge, Chandigarh, The aforesaid undertaking was made knowing fully well his financial resources. Whatever be the financial resources of the respondent, he had paid nothing whatsoever for education of his child, as undertaken by him. In fact his stance is that he has no financial resources to pay. His position and stance is totally unacceptable. For the reasons recorded above, I am afraid I can not agree with any of the defences raised by the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 76 - N P Singh - Full Document
1