Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)
Equus Stud Pvt.Ltd vs Dharmil A Bodani And 21 Others on 11 July, 2024 cites

Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority vs M/S Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel ... on 24 March, 1998

In such context, Mr. Narichania would be correct in his contention in placing reliance on the decision in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority vs. Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills (supra) when he contends that the position in law is well-settled that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on his own case and cannot take advantage of weakness in the defendant's case to get a decree. Such rights would stand independent and would not depend on the failure of adjudication of defendant's right in defendant's proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Mr. Anthony C. Leo vs Nandial Bal Krishnan & Ors on 24 October, 1996

In so far as the powers of the Court to protect the rights and authority of the Court Receiver is concerned, reliance is placed on the decisions of (i) Kanhaiyalal vs. Dr. D. R. Banaji & Ors.3, (ii) Kilachand Devchand & Co. Ltd. vs. Ajudhiaprasad Sukhanand & Co. & Ors.4, (iii) Bank of India vs. M/s. Senior Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 5, (iv) Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 6, (v) Anthony C. Leo vs. Nandlal Bal Krishnan & Ors. 7, (vi) Narayan Manik Patil & Ors. vs. 3 1958 SCC OnLine SC 149 4 1934 SCC OnLine Bom 7 5 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 302 6 (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 12 7 (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 376 Page 20 of 36 11 July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2024 13:35:51 ::: 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC Jaywant J. Patil & Ors.8, (vii) Cletus Gonsalves vs. Audrey alias Hina Khan & Ors.9, (viii) Helmore vs. Smith (1)10 and (ix) Dixon vs. Dixon11. v. The disputed access to the company's property being the only appropriate access as has been noted not only in the impugned order but also in the orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the present appeal. It would hence be imperative that the plaintiffs be permitted to use the access without any obstruction from the appellant. vi. The appellant in fact, had instituted a suit (Regular Civil No. 51 of 2019) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Vadgaon, Taluka- Maval, District- Pune, which was withdrawn and which has not been so far restored, and the restoration of which itself is subject matter of adjudication before the learned Single Judge. It is, therefore, required to be presumed that the appellant had abandoned its rights in respect of the disputed land and this would be the position which would be required to be recognized under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It is thus required to be presumed that the appellant had abandoned its rights in respect of the disputed land from where the plaintiffs were having access to their stud farm. 8 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 725 9 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4740 10 (L.R.] 35 Ch.D. 436 11 [1904] 1Ch. 161 Page 21 of 36 11 July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2024 13:35:51 ::: 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC vii. The appellant could not succeed even before the Sub-Divisional Officer ("SDO") in the proceeding in regard to the disputed land although the plaintiffs were not parties to such proceeding, such proceeding before the SDO hence have become relevant. The actions of the appellant are required to be considered on the facts as they stand, as not only the first gate, but thereafter with intent to disturb the rights of the plaintiffs, a second gate was put up and an obstruction was created in ingress and egress of the plaintiffs/Court Receiver and the vehicles of the plaintiffs visiting the plaintiffs' property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - G N Ray - Full Document

L.D. Meston School Society vs Kashi Nath Misra on 19 September, 1950

In L.D. Meston School Society Vs. Kashi Nath Misra12 the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the context of an order of injunction passed by the Civil Court against the persons who are not parties to the suit, observed that as none of such parties being the parties to the suit, it was obvious that no injunction could be issued and accordingly, such order injuncting the third parties to the suit was set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Bengal Ambuja Housing Development ... vs Pramila Sanfui And Ors on 18 September, 2015

In West Bengal Housing Board vs. Pramila Sanfui and Ors. 13 one of the issues which fell for consideration of the Court was whether a temporary injunction against the persons who are not parties to the suit, could be granted. In such context, the Court observed that it is well settled 12 AIR 1951 ALL 558 13 (2016)1 SCC 743 Page 25 of 36 11 July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2024 13:35:51 ::: 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC principle of law that either temporary or permanent injunction can be granted only against the parties to the suit. The relevant observations of the Court read thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 16 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002

In Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors. 15, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle as laid down in the case Vasavi 14 (2014) 2SCC 269 15 (2019) 6 SCC 82 Page 30 of 36 11 July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2024 13:35:51 ::: 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). The relevant observation as made by the Court reads thus:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 202 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad Patel(D) Thr. Lrs. vs Shivnath on 9 April, 2019

In Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) & Ors. vs. Shivnath & Ors. 15, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle as laid down in the case Vasavi 14 (2014) 2SCC 269 15 (2019) 6 SCC 82 Page 30 of 36 11 July 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2024 13:35:51 ::: 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (supra). The relevant observation as made by the Court reads thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 22 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next