Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 233 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Gannmani Anasuya & Ors vs Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors on 17 May, 2007

Kuldeep Saxena vs Smt. Archana Saxena & 6 Others on 21 August, 2017

In the case of United Engineers and Contractors vs. Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (2014) 16 SCC 109, Hon'ble the Apex Court after taking into consideration the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Thakur Sukhpal Singh (Supra), Girijanandini Devi (Supra), G. Amalorpavam (Supra), Shiv Kumar Sharma (Supra) and Gannmani Anasuya (Supra) has held as under :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 4 - A Kumar - Full Document

Patel Darghabhai Meghrajbhai vs Koli Vaghabhai Varsangbhai on 19 April, 2023

Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating Page 22 of 38 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 19 21:05:24 IST 2023 C/SA/60/2021 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023 the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296. "22.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Sareen - Full Document

Ranabhai Alias Gagubhai Gigabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2023

Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296. "22.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Sareen - Full Document

Somabhai Zerabhai Since Decd Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2022

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for Page 15 of 31 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 12 20:46:25 IST 2022 C/SA/462/2022 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2022 consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heir Of Late Gangaben Chhatrasinh ... vs Patel Hemantbhai Umedbhai on 30 August, 2022

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) Page 22 of 37 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 05 20:38:21 IST 2022 C/SA/146/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022 SCC 296.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bulsara Kalaben Chandrakant vs Dhimmar Ramanlal Devabhai on 2 September, 2022

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate Page 23 of 37 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 08 20:42:57 IST 2022 C/SA/140/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2022 court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharajkumar Hanuvantsinhji ... vs Lh Of Decd Pragmalji Third Of Kutchh on 7 September, 2022

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next