Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal vs Sudheer Mohan on 13 October, 2022

M/S. Navayuga Engineering Company ... vs M/S. Structicon India Pvt. Ltd., Sipl, on 26 September, 2024

25. On the point of Bar of Section 8 for revision under Section 115 CPC against interlocutory order, qua the maintainability and entertainability of CRP under Article 227 of Constitution of India, in P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy (supra) this Court inter-alia referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil15, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel16, Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan17, and M.V. Ramana Rao v. N. Subash18 held as under in para Nos.70, 71 & 72:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd vs Structicon India Pvt Ltd Sipl on 26 September, 2024

25. On the point of Bar of Section 8 for revision under Section 115 CPC against interlocutory order, qua the maintainability and entertainability of CRP under Article 227 of Constitution of India, in P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy (supra) this Court inter-alia referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil15, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel16, Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan17, and M.V. Ramana Rao v. N. Subash18 held as under in para Nos.70, 71 & 72:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayalakshmi vs Padminidevi on 3 September, 2024

10. Here I refer to the dictum in Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal v. Sudheer Mohan, 2022(7) KHC 270 : 2022(5) KLT OnLine 1100. That was a case in which the High Court concerned had dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 which was filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing an O.P.(C).No.86 of 2019 11 2024:KER:66235 application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The petition was dismissed holding the same to be not maintainable as the remedy by way of revision under Section 115 CPC was available to the plaintiffs therein. Reversing the order of the High Court, it was held when there is a remedy under Section 115 CPC, normally a petition under Article 227 would not lie. But that would not mean that a petition under Article 227 was not maintainable at all. There is a distinction between entertainability and maintainability. The remedy under Article 227 is a constitutional remedy which cannot be taken away. In a given case, the Court may not exercise its power under Article 227, if the court is of the opinion that the aggrieved party has another efficacious remedy available under CPC. However, to say that a petition filed under Article 227 is not maintainable at all is not tenable. It was further held that if the High Court was of the view that the remedy available to the petitioners was under Section 115 CPC, the Court ought to have converted the petition under Article 227 into a revision petition under Section 115 CPC and considered the same in accordance with law and on its merits, rather than permitting the petitioners to file a fresh O.P.(C).No.86 of 2019 12 2024:KER:66235 revision application under Section 115 CPC. Thus, the argument advanced that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the said count alone, is not tenable.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1