Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium, Adoni vs Kolli Sanjeevamma And Another on 28 July, 1989

Unknown vs Rt on 1 June, 2016

21. I need not deal with each one of the decisions separately. Certain High Courts have held the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC to be made applicable whereas others of have held only principles analogous thereof to be applicable. Much emphasis was rt laid on Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium, Adoni vs. Kolli Sanjeevamma & another, AIR 1991 Andhra Pradesh 106 wherein, view taken in Mahaboob Bi vs. Alvala Lachmiah, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 314; Jia Lal vs. Mohan Lal, AIR 1960 J & K 22; Moti Ram vs. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 655; and Pattammh vs. Krishnaswami Iyer, AIR 1928 Mad 794, stands affirmed. If one were to carefully peruse the judgment, one would find that the Court has specifically not held the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the revisional jurisdiction under the Act. In fact, it specifically quoted the view expressed by K. V. Gopal Krishnan Nair, J. holding that though the scope of Order 41 Rule 22 would not extend to revisional jurisdiction yet, the High Court in exercise of its ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:30:17 :::HCHP 17 revisional jurisdiction would have sufficient powers to entertain the question which may be raised by the .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

Unknown vs Rt on 1 June, 2016

21. I need not deal with each one of the decisions separately. Certain High Courts have held the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC to be made applicable whereas others of have held only principles analogous thereof to be applicable. Much emphasis was rt laid on Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium, Adoni vs. Kolli Sanjeevamma & another, AIR 1991 Andhra Pradesh 106 wherein, view taken in Mahaboob Bi vs. Alvala Lachmiah, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 314; Jia Lal vs. Mohan Lal, AIR 1960 J & K 22; Moti Ram vs. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 655; and Pattammh vs. Krishnaswami Iyer, AIR 1928 Mad 794, stands affirmed. If one were to carefully peruse the judgment, one would find that the Court has specifically not held the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the revisional jurisdiction under the Act. In fact, it specifically quoted the view expressed by K. V. Gopal Krishnan Nair, J. holding that though the scope of Order 41 Rule 22 would not extend to revisional jurisdiction yet, the High Court in exercise of its ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:30:19 :::HCHP 17 revisional jurisdiction would have sufficient powers to entertain the question which may be raised by the .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

V.V. Krishna Vara Prasad vs S. Surya Rao And Ors. on 24 September, 1996

4. As already seen, the learned Rent Controller has ordered eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement, while the appellate Court has held that in view of the death of the landlord during the pendency of the appeal, eviction petition cannot be ordered on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. Mr. T.S. Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the decision of the appellate Court on this point while supporting the order of eviction. It is submitted that he is entitled to do so under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. though he has not filed cross-objections. He also submits that Order 41 Rule 22 is applicable to Rent Control proceedings as held by this Court in Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium v. Sanjeevamma, 1989 (3) ALT 588 = 1989 (2) APLJ 487 . It is also his submission that there is no need for filing cross-objections as the eviction petition was allowed by the appellate Court on the other ground namely, the ground of wilful default. Mr. Ajay Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner cannot raise this ground taking recourse to Order 41 Rule 22.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

B. Kishanlal Khandsari Sugar Mills vs Dinkar Maharaj And Anr. on 13 February, 2007

28. That finding is binding upon this Court unless, it is set aside by any Bench of this Court or distinguishable on facts. I am of the considered view that the said judgment answers the point raised by the learned Counsel. Therefore, the contention that the cross-revision filed by the tenant questioning the concurrent finding of both the for a below that the premises in question is a 'building', for the above reasons, is maintainable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1