Defendant - Judgment Search Results

O.Nagendran Defendant Vs. Arulmigu Meenakshi

Court: Chennai

of 1.4.1994 to 31.1.1995 has been paid by the Appellant/Second Defendant's father viz, the First Defendant (since deceased) and therefore, the

…appellant/Defendant Vs. Duncan International (i) Limited

Court: Kolkata

in no way connected with either the plaintiff or the defendant and not did it belong to the Goenka group and,

Defendant No.2 Is in Revision Under Article 227 of the Vs. Kewal Singh ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

of being in possession since time immemorial. Defendant/petitioner along with defendant no.3 claimed their right on the suit property on the

The Defendant with Intent to Obstruct or Delay the Vs. Smt. Sabra and ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7042 of 2013 -2- the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any

Petitioner/Defendant No.2 Is in Revision Under Article 227 of the Vs. ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

that the respondent no.1/plaintiff stood guarantor for defendant no.1 and defendant no.2- petitioner towards liability of a loan raised from a

“defendant No.1 Exparte Vide Order Dated Vs. Chamel Singh and Others ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

is present. Her cross examination could not be recorded as defendant requested adjournment. Today was the last opportunity to conclude its

“ That the Defendant Alleged Sale Deed Dated Vs. Gurtej Singh

Court: Punjab and Haryana

document. The plaintiff never executed the alleged sale deed. The defendant might his impersonated some other person in place of plaintiff

Sarojini Das Vs. Haridas Ghosh-defendant

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal12,66Ind.Cas.774

was thereupon lodged on the 22ud January 1918 by the respondent, Haridas Ghose, on the allegation that he had, on the

Govind Prasad Dalmiapetitioner/ Plaintiff Vs. West Bengal State Electr ...

Court: Kolkata

2,80,461.25 a sum of Rs. 2,54,704.05 was appropriated by the defendant towards security deposit. The defendant also deducted Rs. 25,757.18 from

i) That the Defendant No. 4 Without Going Through the Record of Defend ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

the trial Court has correctly negated the plea of contesting defendants to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,