Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (3.53 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Soap Factory And Others vs S. P. Shantharaj And Others on 20 January, 1965

Bmic Limited vs Chinnakannan Sivasankaran ... on 12 December, 2016

Further more, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Raja Soap Factory and Others Vs. S.P.Shantharaj and Others (AIR 1965 SC 1449) has not been taken note of therein. We are also not concerned with the application of Section 39 C.P.C. nor is there any attempt to interpret Section 44 A C.P.C., through the aforesaid provision. As rightly observed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, it dealt with the peculiar provisions contained in the two enactments. Thus the said decision does not have any application to the case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Chote Miyan vs Iqbal Begum on 2 July, 1999

In the judgment Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shantharaj cited (supra), the Supreme Court considered a case where the District Court of Mysore, which had original jurisdiction under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act was closed for" summer vacation and there was no Judge functioning in the District Court and competent to exercise the powers of the District Court on May 5th, 1964. Thereupon the High Court of Mysore, which had no original jurisdiction, entertained the plaint and also an application for interim injunction and granted temporary injunction by an order dated May 29th, 1964. The question that arose was whether tlie High Court which was not invested with original jurisdiction could assume jurisdiction by exercising powers under Section 151 ofCPC. It has been held that the power may be exercised where there is a proceeding lawfully before the High Court and it does not authorise the High Court to invest itself with jurisdiction where it is not conferred by law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V B Rao - Full Document

M.V. Elisabeth And Ors vs Harwan Investment And Trading Pvt. ... on 26 February, 1992

The observation of this Court in Raja Soap Factory and Others v. S.P. Shantharaj and Others, [1965] 2 SCR 800, that section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not confer on the High Court jurisdiction which was not specifically vested was made in the context of section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958) which conferred a specific jurisdiction in respect of a passing off action. That observation is not 1047 relevant to the question regarding the inherent and plenary jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court of record. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, as a successor to the Madras High Court, is vested with all the appellate and original jurisdiction, including admiralty jurisdiction to order the arrest and detention of a ship.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 291 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha vs Kuldeep Bishnoi & Ors on 28 September, 2012

25. The learned Solicitor General submitted that if the decision in Rajendra Singh Rana’s case (supra) which, inter alia, dealt with the question relating to the Speaker’s powers to decide a question in respect of paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule independent of any application under paragraph 6 thereof, is to be made applicable in the facts of this case, the same would be contrary to the decision of this Court in Raja Soap Factory vs. S.P. Shantharaj [(1965) 2 SCR 800].
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 21 - A Kabir - Full Document

Bahujan Samaj Party vs Honble Speaker, Rajasthan Legislative ... on 24 August, 2020

There is another angle of the matter also. The order dated 18.9.2019 being administrative in nature, has immunity under Article 212 of the Constitution of India and no such exceptional (D.B. SAW/510/2020 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 24/08/2020 at 08:56:29 PM) (49 of 54) [CWs-8056&8004/2020] circumstance, as laid down vide paragraph 431 of the Constitution Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raja Ram Pal (supra), exists in the present case which may warrant interference.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M K Goyal - Full Document

Shri Manohar Patel R vs Union Of India on 19 July, 2022

AIR 1972 SC 2379 : (1973) 1 SCR 697] in which Justice Mathew considered Anisminic [(1969) 2 AC 147 : (1969) 1 All ER 208] and also see Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 10, page 327 at para 720 onwards and also Amnon Rubinstein --- Jurisdiction and Illegality (1965 Edn., pages 16-50). Reference may also be made to Raja Soap Factory v. S.P. Shantharaj. [AIR 1965 SC 1449 : (1965) 2 SCR 800]
Karnataka High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

Pradyumna Pattnaik vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 18 November, 2022

// 61 // The aforementioned order of opposite party no.2, which was passed while conducting the inquiry, reveals that he had already come to a conclusion that the complainant by his averments had established that he was subjected to inhuman humiliation and derogatory situation at the instance of the petitioner and, therefore, decided not to summon the petitioner to participate in the proceeding. Once he has taken such a decision, any action taken subsequent thereto is an empty formality. Even, pursuant to note sheet dated 02.06.2018, notice was issued to Sri Dev Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in C.P. Case No. 49 of 2018 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to appear on 07.06.2018 at 3.00 P.M. to give his statement. He appeared on 07.06.2018 and also gave his statement in writing. The same was kept on record and, as such, Sri Das declined to make any further statement. Thereby, opposite party no.2 came to conclusion that summoning any other person in the matter appears to be redundant and submitted the // 62 // enquiry report to the Government in Law Department, as desired.
Orissa High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - B R Sarangi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next