Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.73 seconds)
Documents citing Gopi Krishna Maji vs Judhistir Dey And Others on 19 January, 1995

Pemula Vijayarathnam And Anr. vs Boyapati Singa Rao And Ors. on 13 September, 2007

S. Ramesh (since deceased) per L.Rs. v. Dr. Mohammed Imam Hannorai and Anr. 2007 (5) ALT 10, Hussain Khan v. Yadavalli Choultry (Trust), Kothapeta and Ors. , State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma , Jaipur Development Authority v. Radhey Shyam and Ors. , Ram Saran and Anr. v. Smt. Ganga Devi , Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and Anr. , Potti Venkata Kasi Viswanadham v. Vallabha Vyas , Balamoni Kistanna and Ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy 1982 (2) ALT 408, Parul Bala Roy v. Srinibash Chowmal and Ors. , M.T. Jaggo Bai v. Utsava Lal AIR 1929 P.C. 163, Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal , Gopi Krishna Maji v. Judhistir Dey and Ors. AIR 1995 Cal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sk. Saiful Nandlal And Ors. vs Sk. Akkas Ali on 10 March, 1997

The question may be of germane significance and Mr. Sengupta has strongly relied in support of his contention to a reported decision in the case of Gopi Krishna Majhi v. Judhisthir Dey but the said decision cannot come to the help of the petitioners in view of the patent fact that the order impugned is an appealable one and appeal has already been preferred and the same is pending. Therefore the said question can be gone into in appeal if suitable occasion arises but this Court in view of its finding that revision is not maintainable cannot entertain the same question by embarking into a scrutiny in the domain of merits of the case. As such this Court is not in a position to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application fails and the same stands rejected on contest. The interim orders, if any, will stand vacated in view of the order of dismissal of the revisional application. By way of a supplementary application some other orders have been attempted to be clubbed together in a composite revisional application which cannot be done in a composite manner and by way of supplementary application in a pending application as parent application stands dismissed. Therefore, supplementary application has no independent limb to stand on and the said supplementary application is also not capable of being entertained in one composite revisional application by placement of purported relevance on a supplementary application which cannot be the off-shoot of the main application.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Narayan Chandra Dhar vs Khokon Routh on 17 September, 1998

9. That again as observed in the case of Gopi Krishna Matty v. Judhistir Dey such extreme step for police help must not be taken with undue haste which will not fit with the concept of caution and circumspection which are required to be resorted to before allowing an application for police help and such an extreme step is not contemplated against a person who has put up an independent right as a third party without afforiding an opportunity of hearing to the person actually in possession but not claiming through Judgment/debtor by way of his purported bid to assert Independent right.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1