Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Genba Sahadu Modak (Since Deceased ... vs Shri Suryakant Vitthal Modak And Ors. on 14 October, 2005

M/S Laxmi Hardware Store vs Madhu Sudan & Ors on 26 August, 2008

26. The Bombay High Court in Benba Sahadu Modak vs. Suryakant Vitthal Modal & Ors. ( AIR 2006 (Bombay) 62) held that if the contents of judgment by appellate court shows that the Court after applying its mind to the facts and legal aspect involved in the SB.SECOND APPEAL NO.94/08 (M/s.Laxmi Hardware Store vs.Madhusudan & others) Judgment dt.26/8/2008 14/17 case showed material compliance of Order 41 Rule 3 CPC and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to other side on account of failure to formulate detailed points for determination by the appellate court which at best would amount to mere irregularity.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document

Sri Patel Muni Reddy vs Sri Appaiah Reddy S/O Lt Chinnappa on 2 September, 2014

4. AIR 2006 BOMBAY 62 at para 5,7 & 8 (Genba Sahadu Modak Vs. Suryakant Vitthal Modak) REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT NO.1 IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER AND HIS SON IN LAW I. (2004)1 SCC 295 (R Kuppayee & Another Vs. Raja Gounder) II. 2008 AIR SCW 5666 (Baljinder Singh Vs. Rattan Singh) REGARDING NON IIMPLEADING DAUGHTER AND SON IN LAW OF DEFENDANT NO.1 I. 2012(4) AIR Kar R 424 at para 54 to 62 (S.K. Lakshminarasappa Vs. B. Rudriah) II. AIR 1985 KARNATAKA 143 at para 19 and 20 (Ganapati Santaram Bhosale and another Vs. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni and others) REGARDING FAMILY SETTLEMENT REQUIRES REGISTRATION AND RELEASE OF RIGHTS ALSO REQUIRES REGISTRATION I. (2013)9 SCC 419 at para 11, 14 (Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh and others) II. (2009)6 SCC 194 at para 30 and 32 (Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup and others.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - B R B - Full Document

Surinder Pal vs Narinder Khajuria on 20 September, 2023

12) It has been contended by the appellants that the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court does not conform to the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. If we have a look at the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court, it has dealt with all the contentions that were raised by the appellants while assailing the judgment of the Trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has recorded its findings on each issue after discussing the evidence on record. It is not necessary that the Appellate Court should reproduce the statements of the witnesses while passing its judgment. The reference to relevant portions of the statements of witnesses to support the conclusion is good enough to conform to the requirements of law. Even otherwise, the contents of the judgment passed by 9 CSA No. 25/2012 the Appellate Court would show that the Court has applied its mind to the facts and drawn its independent conclusion on the basis of applicable law. The judgment of the 1st Appellate Court demonstrates substantial compliance to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the other side on account of failure to formulate detailed points for determination by the Appellate Court, which at best would amount to mere irregularity. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Benba Sahadu Modak vs. Suryakant Vitthal Modal and ors., AIR 2006 (Bombay) 62.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Dhar - Full Document
1