Showing : 231-240 of 256 Results

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1994
Details
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13-- Lump sum payment of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by husband to wife - Accepted by wife in settlement of her full and final claims - Marriage dissolved by mutual consent of parties and period required for such dissolution of marriage waived off as petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in the year 1992..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 115-- Estoppel-Compromise decree-Creates an estoppel by judgment. (1992 Civil Court Cases 73 (S.C.) relied)...........
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed - Cheque presented for the second time & again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) followed)...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21, Rule 66-- Proclamation - Specific part of property sufficient to satisfy the decree - To be specifically stated - It is mandatory Failure to do so - Sale set aside. (1990 Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.) Followed)...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1992
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Cheque - Returned unpaid as `payment stopped by the drawer' - Not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due to insufficient balance in the account. (1990 Civil Court CAses 832 (P&H) followed)...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1991
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed - Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Not valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) overruled)...........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1991
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Second Proviso & O.5.R.2 - Second Proviso - Applicability - Can apply to such type of cases where the plaintiff can prove affirmatively by producing categorical evidence that the defendant knew the exact claim - The quality of the evidence which the court may rely upon has to be superb...........
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1991
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 14, Rule 1, 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 30, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 23-- Three suits - Involving common questions of facts and law - Trial Court heard them analogously and delivered a common judgment governing all the suits - Issues not framed separately in all the three suits and not setting those issues in the judgment - It is a technical flaw - However, any..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1991
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 10-- Civil suit cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case of same or similar nature is pending (1990 Civil Court Cases 628 (M.P.) & 1990 Civil Court Cases 261 (P&H) followed...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 1991
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 4(4)-- Court has in appropriate cases, jurisdiction to exercise the power U. O.22 R. 4(4) even after the time limited for making the application for impleading the legal representatives is over...........

Showing : 231-240 of 256 Results