Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 248 (7.66 seconds)
Documents citing R. Ramachandran Ayyar vs Ramalingam Chettiar on 10 August, 1962

Narayan Hari Naik vs Inacio Martins, Son Of Sebastiao ... on 5 April, 1991

In view of this decision which somehow appears to water down the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in V. Ramchandra Ayyar v. Ramalingan Chettiar , I find myself in full agreement with Shri Kakodkar, when he contends that the matter of legal implication of an alleged rent receipt or the question of the facts of its very contents is again strictly a question of law. Further to be noted also that the finding of non-tenancy against the defendant No. 1 rendered by the trial Court in the first suit was not appealable.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Temple Of Maruti, Situated At Cacoda, By ... vs Balkrishna Suryaji S. Kakodkar & ... on 13 February, 1998

27. Decision in V. Ramachandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another (supra) was cited on behalf of the defendants, by referring to para (1) at page 305. Admitting for the sake of argument, without conceding at all, it was urged that if at all there be a mistake in appreciation of the evidence on the part of the learned District Judge, it would not amount to a question of law. If the evidence is misunderstood, yes, there will be a question of law, but otherwise not.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bansibhar Ganga Pershad Agency vs Chanan Lal And Anr. on 31 October, 1974

(20) The Supreme Court has said in V. Ramachandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar another, , that in a case where the evidence which is accepted by the lower appellate court is such as no reasonable person could have accepted that really amounts to saying there is no evidence at all. This is what has happened in this case. In my opinion the conclusions of fact recorded by the courts of fact are such conclusions as are not supported by any evidence. The courts below were not right in placing implicit reliance on the account books of the respondent. The respondent ought to have supported the entries by corroborative evidence either by producing the receipts which were obtained by him or by proving payments in respect of all the 13 entries which were in dispute by independent and reliable testimony. This the respondent did not do. All that he said was that he had made payments which are duly endered in his account books and are shown in the note-book. The best evidence in the case would have been the receipts themselves. These were not forthcoming.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Noor Mohd & Co. And Others. on 24 April, 1973

The Tribunal has expressed the opinion that the questions raised are covered by the fourth proposition. Mr. Lodhas argument, however, is that it is the wrong approach on the question of burden of proof which raises a question of law. Probably the learned counsel hinted that it was the third proposition which was attracted. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

M. Sadasivan Nair vs S. Rajamma on 5 February, 2002

Council's decision and distinguished the same. Therefore, it was held that the two-Judge Bench ruling in S.V.R.Mudaliar's case (supra) could not have relied on the aforecited Privy Council's decision and that hence the Apex Court has preferred in (1999) 4 SCC 350, to follow the view taken by the three-Judge Bench decision in Ramachandra Ayyar's case (supra) rather than the judgment of the two-Judge Bench in S.V.R.Mudaliar's case (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Lal And Anr. vs Lala Mangi Lal And Anr. on 13 February, 1980

In support, the respondents' learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in V. Ramchandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar (1963 All LJ 67 : (AIR 1963 SC 302)). It is not disputed that the law applicable to the present case is that contained in Section 100 of the Civil P. C. as it existed before the amendments made by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Having closely examined the reasons given by the lower appellate court for believing the plaintiff's evidence and disbelieving the defendants' evidence, I have come to the conclusion that its finding suffers from a substantial error of procedure in appraising the evidence which has materially affected the decision of the case on merits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next