Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)

P.S. Batra vs S. Anoop Singh And Another on 19 November, 2008

Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed'' 11 It was again cited with approval in the judgment titled ''P.S. Batra V. S. Anoop Singh & Anr. 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 431'', where it was inter alia held that:­ ''The court has held that since the plaintiff is neither illiterate nor infirm nor mentally weak nor a disabled person nor unaware of his rights and such plaintiff can not be allowed to wriggle out of the affidavit by claiming it to be a fraudulent and ultimately the order 12 rule 6 CPC was passed.'' 12 Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the order of the Ld. Trial Court under order 12 rule 6 CPC does not suffer from any material irregularity. 13 Now coming to the next contentions.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 35 - H Kohli - Full Document

Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000

10 The scope of order 12 rule 6 CPC came before Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment title ''Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. V. United Bank of India, VI (2000) SLT 87, AIR 2000 SC 2740'' and it reads as under:­ ''As to the object of the order 12 rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that 'where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for he plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 394 - Full Document
1