Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Bijayananda Patnaik vs Satrughna Sahu And Others on 26 March, 1963

Laxmi Rai & Ors vs Sanjai Bhattacharya & Ors on 19 October, 2011

The same fell for consideration of the Supreme court in Bijayananda vs. Satrughan Sahu (supra), wherein it has been observed that the provisions of Order 23, rule 1(1) and (3) also apply in the same manner to withdrawal of appeals. It is thus evident that the judgment-debtor's application for withdrawal of the appeal was competent. It has further been laid down that the appellant has 5 an absolute right to withdraw the appeal and no discretion is left in the court to prohibit the same.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S K Katriar - Full Document

Vishwesh Jitendra Gajjar vs Neha Himanshu Gajjar on 30 June, 2025

19. Order 23 Rule 1(1) CPC gives an absolute right to the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon any part of his claim. There is no doubt that Order 23 Rule 1 CPC is applicable to appeals as well and the appellant has the right to withdraw his appeal unconditionally and if he makes such an application to the Court, it has to grant it. [Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu, (1964) 2 SCR 538 at p. 550 : AIR 1963 SC 1566, p. 1571, para 7] Therefore, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn on 28-11-2011 i.e. the date of the filing of the application for withdrawal. On 6-12-2011 which is the date of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, Ms Rachna Aggarwal cannot be considered as a living spouse. Hence, Section 5(i) is not attracted and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent cannot be declared as void."
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ghanai vs State Level Environment Impact ... on 27 April, 2023

In Bijayananda Patnaik vs. Satrughna Sahu and others AIR 1963 SC1566:1964 SCR (2) 538 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that Order 23 Rule (1) applies to withdrawal of civil appeal and an appellant has power to withdraw the appeal at any stage. However, Section 19 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 declares that this Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) although it has to abide by the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to observe that broadly speaking applications or appeals under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 fall in two categories those based on personal injury/cause of action and seeking compensation/restitution on the basis thereof and those based on public injury/cause of action and seeking remediation thereof. While there may not be any serious objection to withdrawal of an application or appeal based on personal injury/cause of action and seeking compensation/restitution on the basis thereof in view of compromise or change of circumstances but it would be against public policy and also public interest to allow withdrawal of application or appeal based on public injury/cause of action seeking remediation thereof cannot be allowed to be withdrawn with out any valid reason just by exercise of personal choice for serving Appeal.
National Green Tribunal Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopal Dass & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 10 March, 2023

30. A right to withdraw a suit in the suit or would be unqualified, if no right has been vested in any other party (See 31 of 37 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2023 01:50:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048534 CRM-M-22688-2010 (O&M) - 32- 2023:PHHC:048534 Bijayanandan Patnaik Vs. Satrughna Sahu and Ors. (1964) 2 SCR 538) and Hulas Raj Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass & Co.(1967) 3 SCR 886) .
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - S Moudgil - Full Document

Ramchandra vs Pokar Ram And Ors. on 29 August, 1984

In such matters, the appellant has right to withdraw it. In this connection Bijayananda v. Satrughna Sahu, may usefully be referred to. That was a case under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 951'). The election petition in that case was dismissed on the ground that the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1951. One Sections appealed to the High Court under Section 16A of the Act of i95. The appeal was heard and it was fixed for judgment and a day prior to the date fixed for judgment, an application was filed by Sections for withdrawal of appeal as he did not (sic)wai t to prosecute it further. A contention was raised that he was entitled to withdraw the appeal. He was supported in this by the appellant but the other two respondents objected to the withdrawal and contended that Sections had no absolute right to withdraw the appeal on the analog} of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC and that principle analogous t sections 100 and 110 of the Act of 1951 applied to an application for withdrawal of an appeal. The High Court held that it must be guided by the principles con ained in sees. i00 and 110 of the Act of i95l when considering an application for withdrawal of the appeal before it- As regards, the right of withdrawal their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat vs Premier Auto Electricals Ltd. on 25 January, 1982

In Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu AIR 1963 SC 1566, in which an election appeal was sought to be withdrawn, it was held that where an application for withdrawal of a suit is made under Order 23, rule 1(1), the court has to allow that application and the suit stands withdrawn. It is only under sub-rule (2) where a suit is not being withdrawn absolutely but is being withdrawn on the condition that the plaintiff may be permitted to institute a fresh suit for the same subject-matter that the permission of the court for such withdrawal is necessary.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vidhydhar Dube And Ors. vs Har Charan And Ors. on 16 March, 1970

In the case of Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu, AIR 1963 SC 1566 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, the court had held that provisions of Order 23, Rule 1(1), Civil P. C. were not applicable to election petitions before the Tribunal and the observation was only to this effect: "But for these special provisions, Order 23. Rule 1(1), Civil P. C. would have been applicable, and it is well established that that provision gives an absolute right to the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon any party of his claim." In this case also the right of the party to withdraw the suit after the passing of the decree by the trial court was not considered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Orissa Cement Limited And Anr. vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 19 February, 1988

In Bijayananda Patnaik's case AIR 1963 SC 1566, the Supreme Court was considering the power of the High Court under Section 116A(2) of the Representation of the People Act while hearing an appeal from an election petition and whether the appellant had the right of withdrawing an appeal filed against the order of the Election Tribunal or not. After examining the provisions contained in Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, which is the appellate power of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has the same powers, jurisdiction and authority and has to follow the same procedure in the matter of withdrawal of an appeal under Section 116A, as in the matter of an appeal from an original decree before it and there is no warrant for importing any limitation in the matter on the analogy of Section 109 or Section 110 of the Act which expressly deal only with election petitions and not with appeals under Section 116A. Thereafter the Supreme Court referred to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the withdrawal and finally came to the conclusion :
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Basudeb Narayan Singh And Ors. vs Shesh Narayan Singh And Ors. on 19 May, 1978

Another decision of the Supreme Court to which learned counsel drew attention is in the case of Bijayananda Patnaik v. Satrughna Sahu (AIR 1963 SC 1566). There the question was of withdrawal of an election appeal-The learned Judges held that it could be allowed to be done on the strength of Order 23, Rule 1 (1) of the Code which grants a plaintiff an absolute right to withdraw a suit unconditionally. There are however, a few other decisions which may be relevant to the present discussion.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next