Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. ... on 1 February, 1997
Admission must be clear and unequivocal; it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the documents only for delaying trial being barred by the Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act or other statutory provisions, can be ignored. These principles are well settled by catena of decisions. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.R's) Vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.R's) ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air India ; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518; Abdul Hamid Vs. Charanjit Lal & Ors. 1998 Vol.2 DLT 476 and Lakshmikant Shreekant Vs. M N Dastur & Co.
Abdul Hamid & Ors. vs Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. on 26 May, 1998
Admission must be clear and unequivocal; it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the documents only for delaying trial being barred by the Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act or other statutory provisions, can be ignored. These principles are well settled by catena of decisions. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.R's) Vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.R's) ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Air India ; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 1997 II AD (Delhi) 518; Abdul Hamid Vs. Charanjit Lal & Ors. 1998 Vol.2 DLT 476 and Lakshmikant Shreekant Vs. M N Dastur & Co.
Lakshmikant Shreekant (Huf) ... vs M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd. on 27 January, 1998
9. From the basic principles of pleading and from the dicta laid down in various decisions cited supra, it is clear that rejection of plaint is unjustified, when the plaint discloses a cause of action. The matters to be considered at the time of enquiry/trial is different from the matters to be considered at the time of admission of the plaint. Without understanding this distinction, the plaint has been rejected. Therefore, the order rejecting the plaint which is perse illegal is set aside.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
R.Munusamy vs G.Krishttappillai on 8 October, 2014
5. It is appropriate to quote that the decisions reported in 2014 (5) LW 59 [R.Munusamy Vs. G.Krishttapillai] wherein it has been held that in a suit for specific performance, the unregistered agreement is admissible as an evidence of contract. The relevant observation reads as under :