Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
(12 of 12) [CW-77/2020]
So far as the reliance placed on judgment in Rajesh Kumar
Agarwal (supra) is concerned, the principles laid down have been
to be applied in the context and in view of what has been
discussed hereinbefore, same would have no application to the
present situation.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
The plea raised based on provisions of Order XXII Rule 10
CPC by relying on the judgment in the case of Thomson Press
(India) (supra) also has no basis, inasmuch as, the defendant
No.1 Smt. Phoolwanti expired in the year 2015 and all the alleged
transfers took place during her life time and, therefore, the
application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which could have been
filed at the relevant time i.e. at the time of respective transfers,
by relying on event of death of Smt. Phoolwanti Devi, which
aspect has no relevance to an application under the said provision,
cannot be countenanced.
Vineet Kumar vs Mangal Sain Wadhere on 5 January, 1984
Reliance was placed on judgments in Rajesh Kumar Agarwal
& Ors. V. K.K. Modi & Ors.: (2006) 4 SCC 385, Thomson Press
(India) Ltd. V. Nanak Builders & Investors : (2013) 5 SCC 397
and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera : AIR 1985 SC 817.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1