Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Mannan Lal vs Mst. Chhotaka Bibi on 10 April, 1970

Kamlesh Gupta vs Vakeel Ahmad on 4 May, 2023

In Mannan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 149 CPC mitigates the rigor of Section 4 of Act 1870 and Courts should harmonize the two provisions and allow the deficit to be made good within the period fixed by the Court. In view of the aforesaid principles elucidated by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, it can hardly be argued by the Defendant that no permission ought to have been granted by the Trial Court to the Plaintiff to Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMAL KUMARC.R.P. 200/2019 Page 11 of 13 Signing Date:13.06.2023 12:43:58 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:4163 make good the court fee and the plaint ought to be rejected at the threshold.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ravani Ceramics vs Marshal Mfg. & Exports on 25 June, 2018

Interpreting Section 149,   this Court in Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi held that Section 149   CPC mitigates the rigour of Section 4 of the CF Act, and the courts   should harmonise the provisions of the CF Act and CPC by reading   Section 149 as a proviso to Section 4 of the CF Act, and allowing   the deficit to be made good within the period to be fixed by it. This   Court  further  held  that if the deficit is  made good, no objection   could be raised on the ground of bar of limitation, as Section 149   specifically   provides   that   the   document   is   to   have   validity   with   retrospective effect."
Gujarat High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Sundarabai Balkrushna Thorat Lrs ... vs Babaji Kondiba Mapari And Others on 1 December, 2021

5) Madan Lal v. Mst. Gopi and another, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1754, in spite of scope of second appeal, and when it can be admitted, cannot be denied at all. However, when this Court is coming to the conclusion that there is absolutely no perversity and wrong appreciation of evidence, it does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Knitting And Textiles Machinery Works ... vs Karunabbal And Ors. on 24 July, 1990

This principle was reiterated in Mannan Lal v. Chhotka Bibi (1971) 1 SCJ 474 : (1971) 1 SCR. 558 : AIR 1971 1373 where it was pointed out that Section 149, C.P.C. mitigates the rigour of Section 4 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and it is for the Court to harmonise the provisions of both the Court-fees Act and the Code of Civil Procedure by reading Section 149, C.P.C. as a proviso to Section 4 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and allowing the deficit to be made good within a period of time fixed by it, which, if done, no possible objection can be raised on the ground of bar of limitation, as Section 149, C.P.C. expressly provides that the document is to have validity with retrospective effect.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd on 14 July, 2021

21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been (2006) 5 SCC 545 taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See: Madan Lal Vs. Mst.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next