Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 120 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Krishnan vs Backiam & Anr on 11 September, 2007

Meganathan vs Subbiah Gounder on 19 December, 2009

"11. It may be mentioned that the First Appellate Court under Section 96, C.P.C. is the last Court of facts. The High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court under Section 96, C.P.C. No doubt the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court can be challenged in Second Appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect. In the present case no question was framed by the High Court as to whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, is a finding based on no evidence or is perverse. Hence the findings of the First Appellate Court that Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, could not have been interfered with by the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Gautam Kumar vs Iec University on 30 October, 2018

"11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Sanjeev Kapila vs Braham Raj Sharma on 17 December, 2018

9. In Krishnan v. Backiam  (2007) 12 SCC 190,  it has been held at paragraph­11 that: (SCC pp. 192­93) r "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the   first   appellate   court   under   Section   96   CPC.   No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can   be   challenged   in   second   appeal   on   the   ground that   the  said   findings  are  based  on  no  evidence   or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Agya Ram vs Manohar Lal on 14 March, 2019

In Krishnan v. Backiam (2007) 12 SCC 190, it has been held at paragraph-11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93) "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Aruna Nand (Deceased vs Sat Pal And Another on 22 May, 2019

93) "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Sou.Sharada Nanasaheb Patil And Others vs Shri Appaso Jivappa Chougule And Others on 20 September, 2019

11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document

Mohd. Iliyas And Another vs Aman Ullah on 15 July, 2019

In Krishnan v. Backiam [Krishnan v. Backiam, (2007) 12 SCC 190] , it has been held at para 11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93) "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi on 5 January, 2016

“11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect. …” 1 (2007) 12 SCC 190
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta (Deceased) Thr Lrs on 1 August, 2022

"Whether the decision of the learned First Appellate Court, to refuse to condone the delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the First Appeal and, thereby, denying the appellant his right to First 9 Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314: Krishnan v. Backiam, 2007 (12) SCC 190: Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, 2001 (4) SCC 262 Signature Not Verified RSA 133/2019 Page 8 of 11 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:05.08.2022 14:58:06 Appeal, is not perverse?"
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Smt Manjula Aggarwal & Ors. vs Sh Vinod Kakkar Since Deceased Through ... on 17 August, 2022

In Krishnan v. Backiam30, it has been held at para 11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93) "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that 27 (1996) 7 SCC 613 28 (2012) 7 SCC 288 29 (2016) 3 SCC 78 30 (2007) 12 SCC 190 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI RSA 79/2022 Page 45 of 57 Signing Date:17.08.2022 13:11:47 the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the High Court to that effect."
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next