Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra Lal vs Mst. Rekhia And Ors. on 25 August, 1970

Hukam Chand vs Delux Finance & Chit Fund (P) Ltd. on 31 July, 1973

This authority has been followed by the High Court of Orissa in Udayanath Panda vs. Baikunthanath Routra , while its weight has been shaken by a decision of the same High Court reported as Mahendra Lal vs. Rekhia, , where the Court, after taking into consideration a number to authorities held that there was force in the submission of the counsel before the learned Judge that in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, , the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench in Doma Choudhary's case was no longer a good law.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharma Samaj Society, Aligarh vs Ram Kishan Dass And Anr. on 7 May, 1979

17. The position of the Law as it has emerged out of the decisions discussed above, therefore, seems to be that it is permissible for a Court to invoke its inherent powers where a party approaches a Court with a complaint that the Court has been misled into passing an order at the instance of the person who merely pretended to represent that party though in fact that person had no authority to represent the party. The Court below is thus not right in holding that the remedy of the applicant lay elsewhere, perhaps meaning a regular suit. The dictum laid down in the above cited decisions are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In my view, the process of the Court was grossly abused in the present case. The provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. are meant precisely for this, namely, to prevent and undo the effects of the abuse of the process of the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Tileshwari Devi And Ors. vs Bhadai Mahton And Ors. on 9 December, 1976

That is true but those cases are such in which a party has been made to suffer by an act of the Court amounting to abuse of the process of the court. It is well settled that actus curiae neminem gravabit; acts of court prejudice none. That principle has no application to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party invited my attention to the decisions in the cast of Mahendra Lal v. Mossomat Rekhia (AIR 1971 Pat 382), Damodar Prasad v. Aditya Maharaj (AIR 1972 Pat 289) and Abdul Rashid v. Sri Sitaramji Maharaj Brajman (AIR 1974 All 275) (FB).
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1