Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Usha vs Palisetty Mohan Rao on 19 February, 2001

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc vs Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd & Ors. on 29 September, 2020

Reference in this regard may also be made to Usha Vs. Palisetty Mohan Rao MANU/SC/0938/2001: (2002) 10 SCC 544 where the opposition to transfer on the ground of the Court to which transfer was being sought having no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was negatived by holding that the powers of transfer are altogether different from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and that if such an opposition were to be accepted then no transfer of any case can be made in as much as the matter would have been filed in a Court having jurisdiction to deal with it and that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory the provisions relating to transfer.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Jisha Thomas vs George Thomas on 13 August, 2021

Later in Usha v. Palisetty Mohan Rao [(2002)10 SC 544], the power for transfer vested with the Supreme Court under Section 25 of CPC was questioned on the premise that it would not be appropriate to transfer a case filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a court which has no jurisdiction under that Act. The challenge was repelled by the Apex Court holding that if the argument is accepted then no transfer of any case can be made, inasmuch as the matter would have been in a court having jurisdiction to deal with it. It was held that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory, the provisions relating to transfer.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Thomas vs Sunnichan on 15 December, 2003

12. In my view when the transfer sought for is justified, relief cannot be refused to the applicant, even if the transferee court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit or proceeding. Of course, the consideration will be different, if it is shown that there is a patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction for the transferee court to try the suit or proceeding. Such an interpretation is necessitated, in my view, for effectuating the power conferred under Section 24 of the C.P.C. I think this is the only view this Court can take, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Usha v. Palisetty Mohan Rao, AIR 2002 S.C. 400. It was a case where a Transfer Petition was filed before the Supreme Court invoking the power of the apex court under Article 139-A of the Constitution seeking a transfer of the proceedings pending before the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatanam for transfer to the Family Court at Mysore. The apex court in answer to the contention of the Counsel for the respondents in that case that it would not be appropriate to transfer the case to a court which has no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - K K Denesan - Full Document

Paramount Plastic Industries vs Corporation Bank & Ors on 26 September, 2014

Reference in this regard may also be made to Usha Vs. Palisetty Mohan Rao (2002) 10 SCC 544 where the opposition to transfer on the ground of the Court to W.P.(C) Nos.4413/2014 & 5581/2014 Page 12 of 21 which transfer was being sought having no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was negatived by holding that the powers of transfer are altogether different from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and that if such an opposition were to be accepted then no transfer of any case can be made in as much as the matter would have been filed in a Court having jurisdiction to deal with it and that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory the provisions relating to transfer.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Gables India Pvt Ltd. vs Corporation Bank & Ors on 26 September, 2014

Reference in this regard may also be made to Usha Vs. Palisetty Mohan Rao (2002) 10 SCC 544 where the opposition to transfer on the ground of the Court to W.P.(C) Nos.4413/2014 & 5581/2014 Page 12 of 21 which transfer was being sought having no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was negatived by holding that the powers of transfer are altogether different from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and that if such an opposition were to be accepted then no transfer of any case can be made in as much as the matter would have been filed in a Court having jurisdiction to deal with it and that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory the provisions relating to transfer.
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

M/S Micros Sugar Engineering Solutions ... vs Punjab National Bank on 19 September, 2022

Reference in this regard may also be made to Usha Vs. Palisetty Mohan Rao (2002) 10 SCC 544 where the opposition to transfer on the ground of the Court to which transfer was being sought having no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was negatived by holding that the powers of transfer are altogether different from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and that if such an opposition were to be accepted then no transfer of any case can be made in as much as the matter would have been filed in a 4 Court having jurisdiction to deal with it and that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory the provisions relating to transfer.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1