Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.55 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala vs Kuruvilla on 3 March, 2004

Rajappan Pillai vs Chandrasekhara Pillai on 12 April, 2017

10. The decision of Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Kuruvilla (2004 (1) KLT 996) was in the context of Rule 8A of Order XXVII of the Code, which provides that no such security as is mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI of the Code shall be required from the Government or, where the Government has undertaken the defence of the suit, from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Kanpur Jal Sansthan vs M/S Bapu Constructions on 3 January, 2014

30. Learned counsel for the appellants, as stated earlier, has commended us to the decision in Kuruvilla (supra) of the High Court of Kerala wherein the Division Bench placing reliance on the decision in Collector, Cuttack v. Padma Charan Mohanty[15] has basically dealt with the applicability of Order XXVII Rule 8A and grant of stay under Order XLI Rule 5 when the State is the appellant. We do not intend to express any opinion on the correctness of the said decisions as the controversy does not arise in the present case because it is neither the Central Government nor the State Government in that sense in appeal before us. It is the "Jal Sansthan" which claims to be an extended wing or agency of the State has preferred the appeal. We have clearly ruled that Order XXVII Rules 8A and 8B are applicable only to the Government and not to instrumentality or agency of the State. That is the specific and definite language employed by the legislature and for that purpose we have drawn a distinction between the concept of "State" under Article 12 and the "Government" as used in Order XXVII Rules 8A and 8B.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 46 - Cited by 21 - D Misra - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. vs M/S Sambhav Industries (A Unit Of M/S ... on 21 March, 2018

"31. The learned counsel for the appellants, as stated earlier, has commended us to the decision in State of Kerala Vs. T.K. Kuruvilla, AIR 2004 Ker 233 of the High Court of Kerala wherein the Division Bench placing reliance on the decision in Collector Vs. Padma Charan Mohanty, (1980) 50 Cut Lt 191 has basically dealt with the applicability of Order 27 Rule 8-A and grant of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 when the State is the appellant. We do not intend to express any opinion on the correctness of the said decisions as the controversy does not arise in the present case because it is neither the Central Government nor the State Government in that sense in appeal before us. It is the "Jal Sansthan" which claims to be an extended wing or agency of the State that has preferred the appeal. We have clearly ruled that Order 27 Rules 8-A and 8-B are applicable only to the Government and not to instrumentality or agency of the State. That is the specific and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Review Petition No.155/2018 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M/s Sambhav Industries) definite language employed by the legislature and for that purpose we have drawn a distinction between the concept of "State" under Article 12 and "Government" as used in Order 27 Rules 8-A and 8-B."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1