Judgments - Recovery of Possession
M/S ATHENA ENERGY VENTURES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ANDHRA BANK
NIKITA GUPTA VERSUS ALOK GUPTA & ORS
VINOD KUMAR KEDIA VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS
M/s Sujit Tractors and Motors and others Versus Bank of Baroda and another
Smt. Manju Pathak vs. Munshi Singh Gurjar
Veerendra Pratap Singh Versus Sanjaya Kumar Tibude
Law laid down - Amendment application based on subsequent developments can be allowed at any stage of the trial or appeal, if the same does not cause prejudice to the other side. The cross objection in the appeal against appellate order can be made. In cross objection a decree can be passed. The cross objection takes the place of appeal after it is filed. Suit for declaration of title filed without claiming a alternative relief of possession, the suit would not be barred Full Judgment
Motilal Gupta Versus Gaya Prasad (since deceased) and others
Law laid down - It is no longer res integra that an executing Court can neither travel behind decree nor sit in appeal over the same. It is only in limited cases where the decree is passed by a Court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus un- executable. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is nullity. Full Judgment
Smt. (Dr.) Sajni Bajaj Vs. Indore Development Authority & Ors.
Munawwar Ali & others Versus Union of India & others
Law Laid Down - Merely because a person has a locus standi to file the writ petition, does not mean that he is entitled to any equitable or legal relief in writ jurisdiction. Equitable relief on the ground of adverse possession against the State - Negated. Supreme Court judgments reported as (2000) 5 SCC 652 (State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh); (2011) 10 SCC 404 (State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar) and (2014) 1 SCC 669 (Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Full Judgment
Mukund Versus Smt.Sulakshana Bokare
NIDHI Vs. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THR. LRS.
The point falling for consideration is whether the marriage of the appellant/landlady as subsequent event can extinguish the bona fide requirement of a landlady and disentitle her for the relief sought in the release application filed prior to her marriage. In the facts of present case, the change in subsequent events is not such that would deprive the appellant of her Full Judgment
SOORAJ KUMAR Vs. TAHSILDAR & ANR
N.M.KRISHNAKUMARI & ORS. Vs. THALAKKAL ASSIYA & ORS.
Whether the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Act in re-examining the case and holding that the findings of the Appellate Authority are not only erroneous but also error in law? The Appellate Authority has completely ignored the undisputed pleadings and material documents on record in favour of the respondents and the said finding of the Appellate Authority is erroneous Full Judgment
Raveesh Chand Jain Raveesh versus Raj Rani Jain
- The bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it confers wide discretion on the court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question arose between the parties. Since the Rule permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination Full Judgment