Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
Pooja Khanna vs Ashwani Khanna on 15 April, 2021 cites

Sh. P.D. Khanna & Ors. vs Sh. Ashwani Khanna & Ors. on 23 April, 2001

The Ld. Trial Court, in my considered view, has not correctly appreciated the facts in the correct perspective. It has been brought on record by the plaintiffs that Sh. Vijay Kumar Khanna was the owner of the said shop and the plaintiffs are the successors in interest of Sh. Vijay Kumar Khanna. None of the defendants, including defendants no. 2 and 3, have brought any material on the record to show that the said property was actually purchased in the name of Sh. Vijay Kumar Khanna, however, it is benefit for all the defendants. The plaintiffs became exclusive owners of the property but the defendants, specifically defendants No.2 & 3, denied their right in the property, as stocks of the partnership firm were stacked in the said shop. The defendants have put the locks in the said property despite the fact that the said property exclusively belongs to Plaintiffs/Appellants. The defendants, including Defendants no. 2 and 3, have no right, title and interest, whatsoever, in the said property and in order to maintain and preserve the said property, the proprietary of justice demands that the defendants were restrained from creating any RCA No. 19/2019 Page - 17 of 32 Pooja Khanna & Ors. V. Ashwani Khanna & Ors.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

5. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has number of time has held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations cause of justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice beign done because of non-deliberate delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) has observed that refusal of condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at a very threshold and causes justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

(D) Because the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that the defendants/ respondents have not led any evidence on record that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property after the death of Sh. Vijay Kumar Khanna and in spite of this, the Ld. Trial Court has decided the issue against the plaintiffs. The ownership of Sh. Vijay Kumar Khanna was never disputed by the defendants/ respondents. (E) Because the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that the appellants are not entitled to relief of injunction contrary to the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 5 SCC 370 Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) through LRs "63.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document
1