Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Rita Dey (Saha) vs Ashit Kumar Saha on 4 April, 2016 cites

Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs Sau, Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar on 15 March, 1971

07. Mr Ranjan Kumar Kali, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, argued that all the decisions and the judgment of the Trial Court is based on some documents which have not been admitted in evidence according to the provisions in the Evidence Act, and the decisions of the Trial Court are also based on some conjectures and surmises as well. His further contention is that the precedents cited by the parties during trial have not been discussed or considered by the Trial Court and that the facts alleged by the Respondent against the Appellant have not been proved at all and as such the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. Mr Kali has referred to the following decisions in his support. I) AIR 1997 Madras 135, (A. Premchand- versus - Padmapriya), II) AIR 1972 Bombay 132 (V 59 C 250), (Raghunath Gopal Daftardar - versus - Sau.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Rajaram Vishwakarma vs Deepabai on 16 March, 1973

Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar), III) AIR 1988 Calcutta 210, (Ruby Roy - versus - Sudarshan Roy), IV) AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 52 (V 61 C 14), (Rajaram Vishwakarma - versus - Deepabai), V) AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (V 55 C 20), (Sri Mohammed Yusuf and another - versus - D and another), VI) AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 173 (C.N. 58), (Sris Chandra Nandy - versus - Sm. Annapurna Ray), VII) AIR 1997 Madras 394, (V. Shankar Ram - versus - Mrs. Sukanya).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mohammed Yusuf And Anr. vs D. And Anr. on 14 July, 1961

Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar), III) AIR 1988 Calcutta 210, (Ruby Roy - versus - Sudarshan Roy), IV) AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 52 (V 61 C 14), (Rajaram Vishwakarma - versus - Deepabai), V) AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (V 55 C 20), (Sri Mohammed Yusuf and another - versus - D and another), VI) AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 173 (C.N. 58), (Sris Chandra Nandy - versus - Sm. Annapurna Ray), VII) AIR 1997 Madras 394, (V. Shankar Ram - versus - Mrs. Sukanya).
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

V. Shankar Ram vs Mrs. Sukanya on 11 March, 1997

Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar), III) AIR 1988 Calcutta 210, (Ruby Roy - versus - Sudarshan Roy), IV) AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 52 (V 61 C 14), (Rajaram Vishwakarma - versus - Deepabai), V) AIR 1968 Bombay 112 (V 55 C 20), (Sri Mohammed Yusuf and another - versus - D and another), VI) AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 173 (C.N. 58), (Sris Chandra Nandy - versus - Sm. Annapurna Ray), VII) AIR 1997 Madras 394, (V. Shankar Ram - versus - Mrs. Sukanya).
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad on 15 April, 2009

08. On the other hand, Mr Gopal Chandra Ghosh, learned Advocate for the Respondent has argued that the documents relied on by the Trial Court have been all admitted in evidence on consent and formal proof having been dispensed with. He has further submitted that basic facts alleged in the Suit by the Respondent have either been admitted or not specifically denied in the pleading by the Appellant and the decisions of the Trial Court are all based on such documents as well as admission and non-denial by the Appellant during trial and as such the decree passed in the Suit is quite justified in law. Mr Ghosh has also referred to the following decisions I) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2463, (Seth Ramdayal Jat - versus - Laxmi Prasad), II) 2015 (4) ICC 451 (S. C.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 109 - S B Sinha - Full Document

A. Premchand vs V. Padmapriya on 1 November, 1996

07. Mr Ranjan Kumar Kali, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, argued that all the decisions and the judgment of the Trial Court is based on some documents which have not been admitted in evidence according to the provisions in the Evidence Act, and the decisions of the Trial Court are also based on some conjectures and surmises as well. His further contention is that the precedents cited by the parties during trial have not been discussed or considered by the Trial Court and that the facts alleged by the Respondent against the Appellant have not been proved at all and as such the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. Mr Kali has referred to the following decisions in his support. I) AIR 1997 Madras 135, (A. Premchand- versus - Padmapriya), II) AIR 1972 Bombay 132 (V 59 C 250), (Raghunath Gopal Daftardar - versus - Sau.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next