Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Venkanna Narasinha vs Laxmi Sannappa on 20 November, 1950

Jeevraj And Anr. vs Lalchand And Ors. on 26 August, 1968

It is true that where a point has not been argued and certain general observations have been made which may seem to cover points not argued before the Court, they may not be considered to be binding, and in such cases the binding nature of the observation of the Court may be limited to the points specifically raised and decided by the Court. It is also true that pronouncements made on concessions of counsel, where a point is not argued, are not binding -- Venkanna v. Laxmi Sanappa, AIR 1951 Born. 57 at p. 63 but otherwise even what is generally called an 'obiter dictum' provided it is upon a point raised and argued, is binding upon the Courts in India."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Smt. Bimla Devi vs Chaturvedi And Ors. on 12 March, 1953

13. It is true that where a point has not been argued and certain general observations have been made which may seem to cover points not argued before the Court, they may not be considered to be binding, and in such cases the binding nature of the observation of the Court may be limited to the points specifically raised and decided by the Court. It is also true that pronouncements made on concessions of counsel, when a point is not argued, are not binding -- 'Venkanna v. Laxmi Sannappa', AIR 1951 Bom. 57 at p. 63 (E) but otherwise even what is generally called an 'obiter dictum', provided it is upon a point raised and argued, is binding upon the Courts in India. In re -- 'Banaras Bank Ltd., A. I. R. 1940 All 544 at p. 550 (F.B.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - R Dayal - Full Document

Mohandas Issardas vs A.N. Sattanathan, Collector Of Customs on 9 August, 1954

11. Then there is a later judgment reported in Venkanna Narsinha v. Laxmi Sannappa (1950), 53 Bom. L.K. 192. That is a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati and Mr. Justice Dixit, and the question that arose for the consideration of that Bench was whether the Hindu residents of North Kanara District were governed by the Bombay School of Hindu law and not by the Madras School of Hindu law. What was urged before this Bench was that the Privy Council had decided that they were governed by the Madras School of Hindu law and that decision was binding upon the Bench. Mr. Justice Bhagwati, delivering the judgment of this Bench, rejected that contention and the remarks of the learned Judge are very pertinent and they are to be found at page 212 :-
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Mohandas Issardas And Ors. vs A.N. Sattanathan And Ors. on 9 August, 1954

8. Then there is a later Judgment reported in -- 'Venkanna Narsinha v. Laxmi Sannappa', . That is a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati and Mr. Justice Dixit, and the question that arose for the consideration of that Bench was whether the Hindu residents of North Kanara District were governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law and not by the Madras school of Hindu law. What was urged before this bench was that the Privy Council had decided that they were governed by the Madras school of Hindu law and that decision was binding upon the Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 59 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1