Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Global Plastics And Chemicals (India) ... vs Mrs. Gian Kaur And Anr. on 3 June, 1993 cites

D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969

7. On merits, Mr. Jain contended that the trial Court passed the impugned order in the spirit of the Supreme Court's order dated July 22, 1991. The order is thus within jurisdiction and there is no illegality. Mr. Jain went on to contend that even if the trial Court acted illegally, no interference was called for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, (1971)73 P. L. R. D. 92 (S.C.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 126 - I D Dua - Full Document

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966

Shri M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2379 and The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, A. I. R.1973 S. C. 76. These judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present is not a cause where the trial Court lefused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or exercised jurisdiction not vested if it is in my view a case where the Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The trial Court was not right in precluding from consideration the claim of the defendant and third parties for giving the property on lease or license during the trial of the suit and only restricting the choice on the plaintiffs alone. There was no justification in observing :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 230 - V Bhargava - Full Document

The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971

Shri M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2379 and The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, A. I. R.1973 S. C. 76. These judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present is not a cause where the trial Court lefused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or exercised jurisdiction not vested if it is in my view a case where the Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The trial Court was not right in precluding from consideration the claim of the defendant and third parties for giving the property on lease or license during the trial of the suit and only restricting the choice on the plaintiffs alone. There was no justification in observing :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 182 - Full Document
1