Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ms. Monica Oswal, Jawahar Lal Oswal And ... on 15 September, 2003
In Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. [1998] 6 SCC 748, the Supreme Court held (page 751) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 102 (1.72 seconds)Documents citing
Ram Prasad Rajak vs Nand Kumar & Bors. & Anr on 18 August, 1998
Madhubala vs Shanti Bai on 27 October, 2025
[Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand
Kumar & Bros., (1998) 6 SCC 748], this Court held that : (SCC p. 751, para 7)
"7. ... Once the proceeding in the High Court is treated as a second appeal
under Section 100CPC, the restrictions prescribed in the said Section
would come into play. The High Court could and ought to have dealt with
the matter as a second appeal and found out whether a substantial question
of law arose for consideration. Unless there was a substantial question of
law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal and
consider the merits."
Laxmibai vs Shantibai on 27 October, 2025
[Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand
Kumar & Bros., (1998) 6 SCC 748], this Court held that : (SCC p. 751, para 7)
"7. ... Once the proceeding in the High Court is treated as a second appeal
under Section 100CPC, the restrictions prescribed in the said Section
would come into play. The High Court could and ought to have dealt with
the matter as a second appeal and found out whether a substantial question
of law arose for consideration. Unless there was a substantial question of
law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal and
consider the merits."
Julekha Bi vs Dinesh Nirwani on 9 February, 2026
"9. The only question to be decided in the suit was whether
plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide
requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not
give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided
on the appreciation of evidence. This view was also expressed by
this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr.,
JT (1998) 5 SC 540: (1998 AIR SCW 2781: AIR 1998 SC 2730).
Castrol Limited vs Sanjay Sonavane And Ors on 20 April, 2026
Kachru vs Dhuliya on 6 October, 2025
[Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand
Kumar & Bros., (1998) 6 SCC 748], this Court held that : (SCC p. 751, para
Decd.Hussain Khan Thru.Lrs.Rasid Khan vs Shaukat Kha on 27 October, 2025
[Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand
Kumar & Bros., (1998) 6 SCC 748], this Court held that : (SCC p. 751, para 7)
"7. ... Once the proceeding in the High Court is treated as a second
appeal under Section 100CPC, the restrictions prescribed in the said
Section would come into play. The High Court could and ought to have
dealt with the matter as a second appeal and found out whether a
substantial question of law arose for consideration. Unless there was a
substantial question of law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the second appeal and consider the merits."
Shrikrishanrav Vaiskar vs Gopal Goshalal Nai Sadak Shajapur ... on 7 April, 2026
"9. The only question to be decided in the suit was whether
plaintiff-landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide
requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not
give rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided
on the appreciation of evidence. This view was also expressed by
this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. & Anr.,
JT (1998) 5 SC 540: (1998 AIR SCW 2781: AIR 1998 SC 2730).
Munna vs Sukhvindi on 17 March, 2023
In Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros.
[(1998) 6 SCC 748 : AIR 1998 SC 2730], this Court
held that existence of the substantial question of law
is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 100 of the Code and entering into the
question as to whether the need of the landlord was
bona fide or not, was beyond the jurisdiction of the
High Court as the issue can be decided only by
appreciating the evidence on record.
Kiran Ramanlal Inamdar vs Gujarat Housing Board on 4 May, 2023
In Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros.
and Another2, this Court held that, "Once the
proceeding in the High Court is treated as a Second
Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the restrictions
prescribed in the said Section would come into play.
The High Court could and ought to have dealt with
the matter as a Second Appeal and found out
whether a substantial question of law arose for
consideration. Unless there was a substantial
question of law, the High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the Second Appeal and consider the
merits."