Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Shobha Surendar vs H.V. Rajan And Others on 1 November, 1996

S C Ramesh vs Late Sri Gopal Naidu on 8 February, 2010

33. On_tl1e other' counsel for the respondent/Adlei7en_dant4vr.C_:'cvo_ri--tended that since Court of Small Causes to pass decree as on that date; decreeis valid and the subsequent judgment of pS:.1vprernle.Court in Shobha Surendar's case cannot a nullity. He also submitted that having regard the fact that the plaintiff not being a lawful sub- V' liesisee and a person having no right over the property and no locus--standi to question the legality of the order passed in HRC 2492/1989, at the instance of such 58 person, this Court should refrain from holding that the decree is a nullity though the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions has held that the law the Supreme Court while interpreting statutory' 4_ unless it is specifically made prospective it. be retrospective one from the dateV_of Courts only explain as to whfatptheyh not makealaw. V i .__p V
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Indira Rao (Deceased) By L.Rs And ... vs West Coast Paper Mills Limited, ... on 17 November, 1998

7. Sri Holla, in response to the submission of Sri Srinivasan that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Suren-dar, supra, the eviction petition as well as the revision petition filed by the landlords are not maintainable, submitted that in this petition, the said question does not arise for consideration. He pointed out that the landlords have sought eviction of the tenant from the premises, which has been described as "two storeyed dwelling house" in the schedule given to the petition. He pointed out that it is not the case of the tenant at any time in the course of the proceedings before the Trial Court, that the petition schedule premises is not a residential premises and as such, the eviction petition filed by the landlords is not maintainable before the Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - P V Shetty - Full Document

S. Balasubramaniyam vs P. Janakaraju And Anr. on 29 April, 2004

"Hence it has to be held that cases which have not reached finality, that is cases which are pending in Trial Courts, District Courts and High Court and cases where decision has been rendered, but the time for approaching the higher Court has not expired, will be subject to the law declared in SHOBHA SURENDER's Case. Consequently the eviction petitions in such ' pending matters will have to be rejected.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - N K Patil - Full Document

C.N. Rudramurthy vs K. Barkathulla Khan & Others on 8 October, 1998

While considering the question whether the decision of this Court in Shobha Surendar case had impliedly overruled the decision of the Karnatak High Court in Padmanabha Rao's case, the High Court held that the decision laid down in Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1986) 3 SCC 385, should be followed and the decision in D.C. Bhatia's case had no application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

C.N. Rudramurthy vs K. Barkathulla Khan & Others on 8 October, 1998

While considering the question whether the decision of this Court in Shobha Surendar case had impliedly overruled the decision of the Karnatak High Court in Padmanabha Rao's case, the High Court held that the decision laid down in Rattan Arya vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1986) 3 SCC 385, should be followed and the decision in D.C. Bhatia's case had no application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next