Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Gojer Bros. Pvt. Ltd vs Ratan Lal Singh on 1 May, 1974

Gopal Lal vs Smt. Amba Bai And Ors. on 5 March, 1998

8. In the case on hand, the suit instituted by Laxmi Lal was dismissed by the trial Court. That decree was taken in first appeal where it was set aside and suit was decreed and then in second appeal the High Court, after a contested hearing dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the decree of the first appellate Court. Therefore, as per ratio propounded by the Supreme Court in Gojer Brothers v. Ratan Lal (supra) the decree of the first appellate Court must be taken to have merged in the decree of High Court and it is the decree of the High Court which is the only decree executable.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

P.T. Xavier vs Lucy V. Papaly on 15 November, 2001

7. Following the decisions in Gojer Brothers v. Ratan Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1380, Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh, AIR 1926 PC 93 and also the decision in I.T. Commissioner v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. AIR 1958 SC 868, the Court took the view that as a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the Tribunal by the Appellate Authority, the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement. It was also held that consequence of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the inferior Court by the superior Court, is to render the decision of the superior Court alone to subsist and to be operative and capable of enforcement. It is, therefore, held that the period starts from the date of the appellate Court decree.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - P R Raman - Full Document

Mehta Suraya And I.P.M. Industries ... vs United Investment Corporation on 5 February, 2002

In Gojer Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Shri Ratan Lal Singh, it was held that where the decree of the trial Court is carried out in appeal and the appeal Court disposed of the appeal after a contested hearing, the decree that is to be executed is the decree of the Appellate Court, since it is a rule that the decree of the trial Court merges in the decree of appeal Court and as such the decree of the appellate Court cannot be corrected by the trial Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 2 - D K Seth - Full Document

Raj Manohar And Bros. vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 April, 1996

7. Before we proceed to consider the contentions on the merits, we proceed to dispose of this legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. We had pursued the order of the learned Commissioner in paras 5, 6 and 7 of his order and we find that he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gojer Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. Rattan Lal Singh (supra) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) where it was held that the doctrine of merger was not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it could not be said that wherever there were two order one of the inferior tribunal and the other by the superior Tribunal the two orders merged irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate order and the scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statue. From the order of the learned Commissioner, it appears that there is difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the question of the merger of the order of the ITO with the order of the first appllate authority. We will have, therefore, to proceed from the principle laid doen by the Supreme Court and then to find the circumstances in which it can be held the order of the ITO has merged with the order of the first appellate authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kannappan vs Rajeswari Ammal, Wife Of K. ... on 14 February, 1992

The Full Bench has placed reliance on the judgment of the Privy Council in Brij Narayanan v. Kunwar Tejbal Bikram Behadur, (1910) 37 Ind App 70 (PC) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gojer Brothers v. Ratan Lal, . It is seen from the facts of the case before the Full Bench that the amendment sought for concerned a correction in the judgment of the details of allotment of shares to which the petitioners laid a claim. The Full Bench did not decide the question whether the error in the judgment could be said to be accidental slip or omission. The Full Bench proceeded to decide the case on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to which the application was made for amendment.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramnath Jhunjhunwala vs Martin Burn Limited & Ors on 9 January, 2024

4. It is now well-settled that the doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine statutorily recognized. It is a common law doctrine founded on the principle of propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. The logic underlying the doctrine of the merger is that there cannot be more than one decree 3 governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by a superior forum and the content of the subject matter of challenge and the ultimate decision passed by the superior forum has to be considered in deciding whether there is a question of merger or not. (Gojer Borther Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 2 SCC 453).
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next