Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 172 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969

Police Commissioner vs Kiritsinh Mahobbatsinh Brahmbhatt on 8 December, 2000

6. In view of this discussion recorded by the appellate Court when the trial Court is having jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 2, exercised the powers and passed order on the basis of the fact that the transfer order is prima facie mala fide and it amounts to colourable exercise of power and arbitrary and that the transfer order has been made with a political purpose and motive, therefore, the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The appellate Court has at length discussed the evidence which were considered by the trial Court. Therefore, considering the limited scope of power left with this Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the relevant observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of DLF Housing & Construction Co. (P) Limited v. Sarup Singh & Ors., [AIR (1971) SC 2324] at paragraph nos. 7 & 8 are reproduced hereunder :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Birbal Singh vs Kedar Nath Sharma on 2 November, 1976

Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi v. Sarup Singh & Ors(1).; The Managing Director .(MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad & .Anr. v.Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase & Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad.(2). We direct the attention of the learned Judges concerned to the law declared by this Court. We allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court and restore that of the Appellate Court. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

J.M.A. Raju vs Krishnamurthy Bhatt on 12 August, 1975

Co. v. Sarup Singh, (AIR 11971 SC 2324) (supra) was by a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Vaidialingam and Dua, JJ. and in Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, (AIR 1959 SC 492) (supra) the decision of the Supreme Court was rendered by a bench consisting of Imam, Das and J. L. Kapur, JJ. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Majumdar that these observations of Mathew, J., regarding the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in the context of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced a new concept, because the bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court could not have overruled and has not in fact overruled any of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on the question.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - D A Desai - Full Document

Chain Raj Mehta vs Smt. Shanta Shukla on 10 January, 1980

In Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1976, Dated 1-11-1976 (SC) also we found recently that, as in the case before us, now, a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court had overlooked the principles governing interference under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code laid down by this Court in Baldevdas Shiv Lal Filmstan Distributors (India) (P) Ltd. ; D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh ; The Managing Director (MIC) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balangar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway . We direct the attention of the learned Judge concerned to the law declared by this Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Police Commissioner, Vadodara City And ... vs Kiritsinh Mahobbatsinh Brahmbhatt And ... on 8 December, 2000

6. In view of this discussion recorded by the appellate Court when the trial Court is having jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 2, exercised the powers and passed order on the basis of the fact that the transfer order is prima fade mala fide and it amounts to colourable exercise of power and arbitrary and that the transfer order has been made with a political purpose and motive, therefore, the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The appellate Court has at length discussed the evidence which were considered by the trial Court. Therefore, considering the limited scope of power left with this Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the relevant observation made by the Apex Court in the matter of D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Limited v. Sarup Singh & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 2324, at paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 are reproduced hereunder :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next