Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 129 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

In view of the above legal position, absence of a direction to be issued to the inamdars for payment of premium of the lands in question after determining their rights and the order passed by the Land Tribunal to register them as occupants in respect of the lands in question cannot be found fault with by this Court, the procedural lapse on the part of the Land Tribunal shall not superseed the legal rights of the inamdars in respect of the lands in question under the provision of the Inams Abolition Act, in support of this legal contention urged by the learned Counsel Mr. V. Lakshminarayana he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court (Smt. Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai(Dead) By LRs.) and the decision of this Court reported in 1966 Mys.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Prikshit Raj Mehra & Anr. vs Bimla Devi on 1 March, 2011

14. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in(1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 494 Isabella Johnson Vs. M.A. Susai by Lrs. is distinct on its fact in that case. The apex court in that case had held that the question of jurisdiction of a court is a pure question of law unrelated to the rights of the parties and such a question cannot operate as res RSA No. 116/2004 Page 8 of 13 judicata in a subsequent suit. There is no dispute to this proposition. However, this ratio is inapplicable to the instant case. That apart from the narration noted hereinabove, it is clear that the courts below have not decided this issue (issue no 5 and 6) on the point of res judicata, the defendant had made a factual admission that he is a licencee; court had rightly returned a finding that he is estopped from changing his stand. This answers the first substantial question of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document

S. Ramesh And Ors. vs Dr. Mohammed Imam Hannorai And Anr. on 23 March, 2007

7. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court referred Isabella Johnson (Smt.) v. M.A. Susai (Dead) by LRs. (supra), wherein it was held that the view that the principle of res judicata is applicable to an erroneous decision on jurisdiction cannot be regarded as good law and a Court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferred with the jurisdiction by applying the principle of res judicata and it is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law and in this case the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. There cannot be any doubt relating to the said proposition of law specified supra.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lokmat Media Private Limited, Nagpur ... vs Chandrashekhar S/O Kisanlal Mahule on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Lokmat Media Private Limited, Nagpur ... vs Ramesh S/O Baburao Mondhe on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Lokmat Media Private Limited, Nagpur ... vs Jiwant S/O Kumar Sharan on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Lokmat Media Privat Limited, Through ... vs Pravin S/O Diwarkar Mendhi on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Lokmat Media Private Limited, Nagpur ... vs Ravindra S/O Bhagyanarayan Thakur on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Lokmat Media Private Limited, Nagpur ... vs Prakash S/O Deorao Kanfade on 30 November, 2018

24] In my opinion, the principle of law laid down in the case of Isabella Johnson is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The question as to whether an establishment like the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the ID Act or the MIR Act is a pure question of law and this question cannot be allowed to be answered by the words and conduct of the parties. It is an issue which raises a question of law and, therefore, must be adjudicated upon by a Court of law on it's own merits, that is to say, on the basis of factual scenario of the case and principles of law applicable to it and not by holding a party against it's own words. Even if a party says that it is governed not by the provisions of the ID Act but by the provisions of the MIR Act, it would not clinch the issue in favour of the MIR Act and against the ID Act, for, applicability of a particular Statute to a party or a subject matter is a question of law and hence, would require for it's resolution consideration of the merits of the case. For deciding this question, presence or absence of bona fides is really not relevant, for the actions or conduct of parties would not confer jurisdiction on the Court, which is not otherwise available under law or would not oust the jurisdiction of the Court, conferred on it by law.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next