Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 88 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithabrao Maruthirao Janagavai on 3 April, 1975

(O&M;)Sunil Kumar Jain vs Vinit Garg And Anr on 16 September, 2014

"The language of Section 25 is indeed very wide. But we must attach some significance to the circumstance that both the expressions 'appeal' and 'revision' are employed in the statute. Quite obviously, the expression 'revision' is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression 'appeal'. In fact it has to be noticed that under Section 25 the High Court calls for and examines the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself. The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words 'to satisfy itself' under Section 25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; "it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(O&M;) Tirath Ram And Ors vs Balwant Singh on 17 December, 2014

"The language of Section 25 is indeed very wide. But we must attach some significance to the circumstance that both the expressions 'appeal' and 'revision' are employed in the statute. Quite obviously, the expression 'revision' is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression 'appeal'. In fact it has to be noticed that under Section 25 the High Court calls for and examines the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself. The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words 'to satisfy itself' under Section 25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of JITENDER KUMAR 2014.12.24 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 23 of 2004 -14- the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval1; "it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Uoi & Ors vs Naresh Chander on 27 August, 2014

(R.M. Lodha) …….………..……………………J. (Dipak Misra) …….………..……………………J. (Madan B. Lokur) …….………..……………………J. (Kurian Joseph) NEW DELHI; …….………..……………………J. AUGUST 27, 2014. (S.A. Bobde) ----------------------- [1] Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] [2] Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422] [3] Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655] [4] Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; [(1975) 2 SCC 246] [5] M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar; [(1980) 4 SCC 259] [6] P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal; [1987 (Supp) SCC 250] [7] H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam; [(1969) 2 SCC 194] [8] Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla; [(1991) 1 SCC 422] [9] Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675]
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014

Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; “it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal”.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 510 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Tara Chand vs Vijay Kuamr Aggarwal & Anr on 12 March, 2024

"......Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of RC.REV. 160/2018 & connected cases Page 21 of 36 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN KATHPALIA Date: 2024.03.12 14:24:43 +05'30' Signing Date:12.03.2024 17:24:32 the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval1; "it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal".
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Guru Darshan Mahendru vs Vijay Kuamr Aggarwal & Anr on 12 March, 2024

"......Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of RC.REV. 160/2018 & connected cases Page 21 of 36 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN KATHPALIA Date: 2024.03.12 14:24:43 +05'30' Signing Date:12.03.2024 17:24:32 the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval1; "it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal".
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhom Raj vs Shakuntla Mehta on 20 August, 2024

(v)The expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of much narrower expression than the one expressed by the expression "appeal". The revisional power under the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC but certainly it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. While holding so the Court reiterated the view taken in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagawal, (1975) 2 SCC246.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next