Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Koshal Pal & Ors vs Mohan Lal & Ors on 26 November, 1975

Ramesh Chand Bahree vs Om Pradash And Anr. on 20 September, 1976

5. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner relies mainly upon Stint Pal v. Kishan Lal 1976 CRLJ 215, which is said to be a direct authority on this point. In this case, an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. was held to be an interlocutory order. It was observed that a revision petition against such an order is clearly barred by Sub-section (2) of Section 397. This bar cannot be circumvented by having recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. which does not apply to cases which are covered by the said specific provision of the Code. The learned Judge said however, that even if it is presumed that the petition is maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petition had no merits. Such an observation is generally made only when the court is unable to make a categorical pronouncement.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Thakardwara Bhagwan Narain Ji vs Financial Commissioner on 19 May, 2009

finding in the suit. The ratio of law laid down in Sheodan Singh's case (supra) also would not apply as it apparently was not a case where there was a common judgment or order passed. Rather this was a case where trial court has decided two suits having common issue on merits and two separate appeals therefrom were filed, one of these was dismissed on some preliminary ground. It was observed that trial court decision, thus, stood confirmed by the decision of the appellate court which will operate as res judicata and the appellate court must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In the present case, there is a common judgment and High Court has not confirmed the view taken in any of the cases decided by the Financial Commissioner to justify the plea of res judicata.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - R Singh - Full Document

Ahemad Ibrahim And Ors. vs Khokhar Issa Abdulkarim And Ors. on 11 March, 1980

Though the decision of the Full Bench is very old, rendered in 1884, the said judgment has been referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Koshal Pal v. Mohan Lal of its judgment the Supreme Court has referred to the ratio of the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court reported in I.L.R 8 Bom. 174. The Supreme Court has observed that the ratio of that decision was not applicable to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. In fact, the ratio of the said judgment has been approved by the Supreme Court in para 37 when it was observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Jamaludeen vs Ramachandran on 27 June, 2024

17. The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that in an earlier decision of the Hon'be Supreme Court in Kushal Pal & Ors. Vs. Mohal Pal and Ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 449], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the first suit was instituted for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction, and the second suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, then the second suit is hit by the principles of res-judicata.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document
1