Ganesan vs The Revenue Dvisional Officer Cum on 14 June, 2010
14. It is observed by this Honourable court in the decision reported in 1992 LW (Cri.) 579 (G.Sethuraman and two others vs. Miss.Meenakshi Ammal and two others) as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 71 (3.51 seconds)Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. ... on 23 July, 2020
137. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment of Supreme
Court in case of Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Ors. (supra) on the
ground that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 does not apply to arbitrations. Even if issues are
framed by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal does not decide
every such issues. If a particular issue is incapable of decision, the
arbitral tribunal will not decide such issue.
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. ... on 23 July, 2020
137. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment of Supreme
Court in case of Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Ors. (supra) on the
ground that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 does not apply to arbitrations. Even if issues are
framed by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal does not decide
every such issues. If a particular issue is incapable of decision, the
arbitral tribunal will not decide such issue.
A.Shantha vs The Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate on 25 March, 2014
In the same judgment, earlier decision of this court reported in 1992 LW (Cri) 579 (G.Sethurman and two others v. Meenakshi Ammal and two others) was referred to, which makes it abundantly clear that section 145 (4) Cr.P.C enables both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and the Magistrate is bound not only to receive all such evidence as may be produced, but he is also empowered to take such further evidence if any, as may think necessary. After the production of the oral evidence, the Magistrate will have to decide the actual or factual possession, the evidence placed before him, on the date when the preliminary order had been passed, which necessarily implies the discussion of the evidence placed before him. The learned brother Judge, after referring the view expressed in the earlier decision, set aside the impugned order, which in the case decided therein do not at all indicate with reference to any oral or documentary evidence in deciding the question of possession.
Raj Nath Dubey And Another vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 12 ... on 8 November, 2013
Supreme Court in Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakashi Ammal, (2009) 9 SCC 757, held that res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilised system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principles in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject-matter between the same parties. The principles of res judicata reflect "a wisdom that is for all time".
Elsy Francis vs Secretary, Mattathur Grama Panchayath on 29 January, 2024
In Gangai Vinayagar Temple and others v.
Meenakashi Ammal and others [(2009) 9 SCC 757] on
the principle of res judicata the Apex Court observed
thus:-
B.T.Kumar vs / on 2 December, 2013
40. Three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Gangai
Vinayagar Temple and Another v. Meenakshi Ammal and Others10 dealt
with the ambit and sweep of the principles of res judicata and Order 2
Rule 2 of CPC (on the question of cost) and had this to state:
Duppala Sitamahalakshmi Padmaja vs Mahmood Ali Hammami on 10 April, 2024
(iii) Gangai Vinayagar temple and others v. Meenakashi
Ammal and others 3;
Duppala Sitamahalakshmi vs Mahmood All Hammami on 10 April, 2024
(iii) Gangai Vinayagar temple and others v. Meenakashi
Ammal and others 3;
Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Akhil Karnataka Grama Vidhyuth ... on 24 January, 2025
• Shri Ramagya Prasad Gupta and Others v. Sri Murli
Prasad and Others, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 266;
• Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Others v. Meenakshi
Ammal and Others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 757;
• Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Another v.
Meenakshi Ammal and Ors, reported in (2015) 3 SCC
624;