Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing K.R.Mohan Reddy vs M/S Net Work Inc Rep.Tr.M.D on 26 September, 2007

Ramlal Contractor vs Kanpur on 23 March, 2026

In K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. [K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc., (2007) 14 SCC 257] this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 261, para 19) "19. The appellate court should not pass an order so as to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the trial court, but it will be different if the court itself requires the evidence to do justice between the parties. The ability to pronounce judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce judgment satisfactorily to the mind of the court. But mere difficulty is not sufficient to issue such direction."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Nagpur Popular Book Shop, Thr. ... vs Manohar Ramdas Burudkar (Dead) Thr. Lrs on 10 November, 2023

27. Though Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin; Union of India v. Lakshman; K.Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy; K.R.Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc.; North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das; Mahavir Singh v. Naresh Chandra; Phool Chand Jain v. Smt.Jotri Devi Jain and Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (supra) have been relied upon by Mr.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the tenant, in support of his contentions that Ex.35, 37 & 41 ought to have been allowed, and the propositions as laid down therein cannot be disputed, however considering the factual position as enumerated KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 21/22 above, in my considered opinion, these are not of any assistance to the case canvassed by the tenant, as not a single document has been brought to my attention by Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel for the tenant, to point out that the same had any bearing upon the issue of bonafide need and non-consideration has caused any prejudice to the tenant. The rejection for this reason also cannot be faulted with, though the grounds are different.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Saleha Bibi @ Chhabi & Anr vs Asim Kumar Chatterjee on 30 September, 2022

28. We find that the learned Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff had been able to prove his case. Although it has been argued that the matter should be remanded for permitting the appellants to lead additional evidence, we do not find any reason to remand the matter. The appellants have not taken out any application for leading additional evidence. The appellants have neither disclosed nor have been able to demonstrate as to what additional evidence the appellants seek to rely. No case far less a case of remand has been made out. The case of K.R. Mohan Reddy Vs. Net Work INC (supra) cited by the appellants does not come in aid of the appellants. Paragraph 18 of the aforesaid report makes it clear that the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not authorise the Appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - T Chakraborty - Full Document

Akhileshwar Mahto vs Smt. Kasida Devi on 11 January, 2022

a. 1999 Supp (3) SCC 129 Vinay Krishna Vs. Keshav Chandra and another b. Meharchand Das Vs La Babu Siddique 2007(4) SCC 253 c. K.R Mohan Reddy Vs Net Work Inc Represented through MD (2007) 14 SCC 257 d. Union of India Vs Ibrahimuddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 e. Phool Kumari Vs Office of the Superintendent Tihar Jail (2012) 8 SCC 183 f. (2014) 14 SCC 502 Venkataraja and others Vs Vidyane Doudreadja- preumal g. 2017(2) Scale 747 Executive officer Arulimigu Chokkanatha Sway Koil Trust Vs Chandran and others
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G K Choudhary - Full Document

Shri Pawan Kapoor vs Vineet Arora & Ors on 3 July, 2023

In K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. [K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc., (2007) 14 SCC 257] this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 261, para 19) "19. The appellate court should not pass an order so as to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the trial court, but it will be different if the court itself requires the evidence to do justice between the parties. The ability to pronounce judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce judgment satisfactorily to the mind of the court. But mere difficulty is not sufficient to issue such direction."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varadhan vs M.Govindasamy on 5 November, 2009

9.Another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R.Mohan Reddy V. Net Work INC. Rep. T.R.M.D. (2008) 1 MLJ 1253 (SC) is cited on the side of the revision petitioner to the effect that 'the Power of the Appellate Court to pass an Order under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to admit additional evidence in limited. For exercising its jurisdiction thereunder, the Appellate Court must arrive at a finding that one or the other conditions enumerated thereunder is satisfied. A good reason must also to be shown as to why the evidence was not produced in the trial Court.'
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next