Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 828 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959

_______________________________________________________ vs Hitesh Chanana & Others on 5 June, 2025

view jurisdiction, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. Relevant extract from para 17 of the Report is reproduced he- reunder : (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR pp. 141-42) "17. ... Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bombay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the al- leged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated ar- guments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certi- orari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz. that an order for possession should not be made unless a previous notice had been given was an error apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ of certiorari.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani on 2 November, 2023

In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960]1SCR890 this Court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the Page 136 of 144 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 03 20:42:11 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11998/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2023 undefined face of the record.
Gujarat High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

_______________________________________________________ vs Lal Singh & Another on 26 November, 2025

view jurisdiction, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. Relevant extract from para 17 of the Re- port is reproduced hereunder : (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC On- Line SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR pp. 141-42) "17. ... Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not ne- cessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bom- bay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival con- tentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be es- tablished, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 23:19:46 :::CIS 11 think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari ac- cording to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bom- bay Revenue Tribunal viz. that an order for possession .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Vaishali Dhanesh Bhale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 May, 2026

(Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR pp. 141-42) "17. ... Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bombay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari Narwade R.A-3-2026.odt 5 according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N B Suryawanshi - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... vs Venkat Naganna Mittewad on 6 May, 2026

(Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde case [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 10 : AIR 1960 SC 137] , AIR pp. 141-42) "17. ... Is the conclusion wrong and if so, is such error apparent on the face of the record? If it is clear that the error if any is not apparent on the face of the record, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the conclusion of the Bombay High Court on the question of notice is correct or not. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments. We do not think such an error can be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. In our opinion the High Court was wrong in thinking that the alleged error in the judgment of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal viz.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N B Suryawanshi - Full Document

Om Prakash Mandal Aged About 50 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 24 September, 2018

The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137) "An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Shivchandrai Jhunjhunwala, ... vs Govindprasad Ganeshprasad Dubey And ... on 9 May, 2003

See in this connection the observations of this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, . Where two views are possible and the trial Court has taken one view which is a possible and plausible view merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and would be in error in interfering with the finding of the trial Court or interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution over such decision."
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D D Sinha - Full Document

Somari Kamin vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director C C L ... on 22 January, 2016

The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137) "An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Rinku Devi vs Abhimanyu Singh & Anr on 20 July, 2017

The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137) "An error which has to be established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Rajesh Ravidas vs Ms Central Coal Fields Limited Through ... on 15 June, 2016

The following observations in connection with an error apparent on   the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde  v. Millikarjun   Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137) "An   error   which   has   to   be   established   by   a   long­drawn   process   of   reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can   hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where   an alleged error is far from self­evident and if it can be established, it   has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an   error   cannot   be   cured   by   a   writ   of   certiorari   according   to   the   rule   governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR   pp. 901­02)         ­7­
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next