Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Choudhary Sahu (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Bihar on 14 December, 1981

Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Dulasi Ammal And Ors. on 12 June, 1997

In Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar the Apex Court has held that on the strength of the first part of sub Clause (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 the State of Bihar could only support the decree not only on the grounds decided in its favour but also on the grounds decided against it. The Commissioner however, could not set aside the findings in favour of the appellant on the strength of Order 41, Rule 22(1). Nor was the Commissioner empowered to do it by invoking Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., as the rule did not confer, an unrestricted right to reopen decrees which had become final merely because the appellate court did not agree with the opinion of the court appellated from.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar ... vs Santhalakshmi And Others on 16 April, 1999

It is clear from the above said decision as well as the decision of the Apex Court reported in Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar, , that even in the absence of cross-objection/ appeal in the interest of justice equity and conscience, if the aggrieved person is able to satisfy the law of limitation as well as Court fee, is open to this Court to grant proper relief in favour of the aggrieved person/persons. In our case, I have already observed that there is abundant proof regarding filing of cross- objection by the respondents on 11.06.1993. Regarding the first condition provided in the said decision, it is seen from the notice papers sent by this Registry in CMA.No.298 of 1993 that the same had been sent to the ' respondents on 6.4.1993 mentioning the hearing date as 20.4.1993. The limitation prescribed for filing cross-objection is 30days from the date of receipt of a copy of the grounds of appeal. Even if it is accepted that the grounds of appeal. Even if it is accepted that the grounds of appeal have been served on the respondents in between i.e., 4 and 20.4.1993, filing of the cross-objection on the reopening date i.e., on 11.6.1993 after summer recess, undoubtedly would be within the time prescribed. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondents have filed cross-objection within the time prescribed.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Surjansingh S/O Mohansingh vs Smt. Jasbir Kaur Wd/O Sardar ... on 27 November, 2007

It is apparent that in the facts of present case, there is no decree against the present respondents who were also respondents before the first appellate Court. A cross objection to the decree would be necessary if the respondents want any particular relief in their favour from appellate court. As the suit was already dismissed by the trial Court, the respondents before the appellate Court could not have prayed for any better relief and they were only challenging the adverse finding on remaining two issues against them by trial Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar (supra) is delivered in totally different set of facts. There, acting under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962, the Collector allowed certain units to various land holders who feeling aggrieved went in appeal before the Commissioner of the Division but the State of Bihar submitted to the order and did not go up in appeal nor did it file cross-objection. The Commissioner as well as High Court thereafter reversed the finding regarding allotment of units to various landholders (appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court) though there was no appeal by the State of Bihar and said allotment had become final and rights of the State of Bihar had come to an end to that extent by not filing any appeal or cross objection within the period of limitation. Thus, it is apparent that there the substantive rights were created in favour of land holders and the observations in relation to Order 41 Rule 22 are made only in this background. Here, as already observed above, the present appellants could not have claimed any better relief than was granted to them by the trial Court and they were only seeking dismissal of suit against them on additional grounds. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, has no application in the facts before me. With the assistance of both counsel, I have perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Guddi And Ors. on 2 April, 2002

In the case of Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar (AIR 1982 SC 98), it is held that while exercising powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, Court can grant relief depending upon the exigency of the circumstances and the situation in a particular case in order to render justice. It is further held that even in the absence of cross-objection/appeal, in the interest of justice, equity and conscience, if aggrieved party is able to satisfy, then it is open for the Court to grant proper relief in favour of the aggrieved person. Appellate Court is competent to enhance quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal even in the absence of cross-objection. In the said facts of the case, since Appellate Court has enhanced the compensation in the interest of justice, equity and conscience, and the claimants were permitted to canvass the correctness of the order for which they have not chosen to challenge by way of appeal or cross-objection, the Court can exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code and grant equitable relief. Since the powers have been exercised under the aforesaid provision, no interference is warranted with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Akshay Bhandar. on 31 October, 1989

20. It may be mentioned that in the earlier preceding paragraph, we have repeatedly stated that the assessee requested the ITO to treat the above amount of Rs. 24,250 as income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78, on the basis it had no further evidence to produce and requested the ITO also not to give further opportunity to produce witnesses in support of the earlier contentions. In other words, the assessee has taken the pleading that the above amount was the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78. That pleading of the assessee is binding. Of course, we have to take the entire pleading as a whole keeping in view the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 98 and also in another decision in the case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati AIR 1965 SC 364 as decided by the Honble Supreme Court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next