Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006

Smt. T.K. Gowramma W/O. T. Krishna Kumar vs Sri. C.K. Raviprasanna S/O. Late C.P. ... on 21 February, 2007

7. Keeping in mind the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan's case it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of plaint schedule property. The respondent claims that he is in possession of the schedule property. The parties produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions. Both the Courts below concurrently held, that the respondent has made out prima facie case. The findings of both the Courts below is supported by pleadings and documentary evidence on record. Though a different view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below. Under Article 227 of the Constitution this Court cannot substitute its own discretion in place of the judicial discretion of both the Courts below particularly in the absence of error of jurisdiction.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - H N Das - Full Document

Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani vs Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde on 19 October, 2007

Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh . I have perused the facts from paragraph Nos. 2 to 5. Apart from this, the Apex Court in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment has considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph No. 13, the Apex Court considering the scope of Article 227 and exercise thereof, observed that failure to render the necessary findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error likely to correction. In my view, the orders passed in the case on hand by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, suffers from jurisdictional error. It is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and upset the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - S B Deshmukh - Full Document

Joydeb Das vs Ram Gopal Manna And Ors. on 8 June, 2007

22. It is the settled principle of law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. This does not, however, mean to suggest that this Court is to remain indifferent even when it finds that wrong or improper approach has been made while coming to a finding of fact. The Apex Court in the case of K.K. Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh held that the failure to render the necessary findings to support the order would also be a jurisdiction error liable to correction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tanusree Basu And Ors. vs Ishani Prasad Basu And Ors. on 17 March, 2007

10. Reference was made by the said learned Counsel to the decision reported at SC; Suppl. 2006(3) CHN 27 (Kiahore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh). In the said reported case it was found that prima facie it was clear that the plaintiff in the said case has not laid the foundation for the grant of an interim order of mandatory injunction in his favour. In the said reported case it further appears that the Trial Court had refused an ad interim ex parte order of injunction and the main application for injunction was still pending before the learned Trial Court and that the learned Appellate Court was dealing with only the limited question whether an ad interim order of injunction should or should not have been granted by the learned Trial Court. It further appears that in the said case there was no clear prima facie finding that the plaintiff was in possession on the material dated and, in such circumstances, an order for interim mandatory injunction could not have been passed. It further appears from the said reports that an interim mandatory order of injunction can be passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction. It appears that the facts of the said reported case were not similar to the facts of the present case since there is a clear prima facie finding by the learned Trial Court while disposing of the plaintiffs petitioners' application for temporary injunction on contest as already indicated above and the learned Trial Court came to the finding that admittedly the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are in possession of schedule 'B' property in amicable arrangement having three flats and three car parking space thereto and from the materials on record it prima facie appears that the plaintiffs are in possession of flat No. 202, defendant No. 1 is in possession of flat No. 201 and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are in possession of flat No. 302 in the said 'B' schedule property. Thus, it cannot be said that in the present case there is no prima facie finding by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the said reported case cannot be of any help to the petitioners. It is clear that the learned Trial Court after having recorded its prima facie finding in respect of possession by the respective parties in respect of the 'B' schedule property, the learned Trial Court disposed of the application for injunction on contest.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T K Dutt - Full Document
1   2 Next