Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006

M/S.Beml Limited vs M/S Veer Engineering Works on 3 January, 2022

In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh, 2006 3 SCC 312, this Court held that when a court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction. The failure to render the necessary findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error liable to correction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Sen @ Sunil Kumar Sen vs Chhanda Dutta (Deceased) on 28 January, 2022

Alternatively, it may be put in this way that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction, but when a Court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to the finding of the fact, the said fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction, and it is still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The failure to render the necessary findings to support its order would also be jurisdictional error liable to correction {(2006) 3 SCC 312 rendered in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh para- 13 relied upon}.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Dasgupta - Full Document

G S M Technologies Pvt Ltd vs Veena Anand on 17 October, 2022

In Kishore Kumar Khaitan's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interim mandatory injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff has established that he was dispossessed subsequent to filing of the suit, in violation of the status quo order.However, in the instant case, the respondent has been able to establish her ownership as well as possession of the suit property, thus, the interim order cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M N Kaul - Full Document

Suman Singh vs District Magistrate And 7 Others on 20 October, 2022

45. Nonetheless, there is an additional factor, which needs to be noticed at this stage which is relatable to the fact that the question as to who is in the possession and as to what is the extent a matter is to be decided. This obviously presupposes necessary exercise which is to be undertaken while recording finding with respect to not only the three golden principles being prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, but also with regard to the factual possession, which exists on the site in order to determine as to which of the parties either plaintiff or defendant is in possession. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312, wherein in paragraphs 4, 5 and 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court as observed as under: -
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Varma - Full Document

Sadashiva Baliga vs C. Lakshminarayana on 31 October, 2022

On the question of law, Sri. S Sriranga submits that it is trite that the Courts cannot pass orders of status quo without explaining the significance of such order, and in this regard, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another v. Praveen Kumar Singh' reported in [2006] 3 SCC 312 and draws the attention of this Court to paragraph-5 which in its material part reads as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Aynur Molla vs Abu Taleb Molla & Ors on 18 April, 2022

Mr. Samim Ahammed, Ms. Ambiya Khatun ... For the petitioner. Mr. Anirban Mitra, Mr. Amit Halder, Md. Wasim Akram ... For the opposite party no. 1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for declaration of title and injunction being Title Suit No. 24 of 2014 pending before the 2nd Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Basirhat, District - 24 Parganas (North). In the said suit the plaintiff, the opposite party no. 1 herein, filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the learned Trial Judge dismissed by the Order No. 38 dated January 06, 2017. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said order preferred the connected Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2017. The appeal Court below by the order impugned being order dated September 30, 2019 has allowed the said appeal thereby has directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the said suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. vs. Praveen Kumar Singh reported in (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 312 has deprecated passing of an order of status quo without indicating what the status quo was. 2 The aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court renders the order impugned unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The appeal Court below is requested to decide the said appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Basu - Full Document

Roopchand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 June, 2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anor Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312, in which it is held that "passing of direction by Appellate Authority to maintain status quo in respect of suit property "without indicating what status quo was," was not proper and held that the said order should not have been passed in such a manner at the initial stage of litigation particularly where the appellate authority was dealing with only limited question of grant of ad-interim injunction and the main application for injunction pending suit, was still pending before the trial Court."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A N Kesharwani - Full Document
1   2 Next