Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Shivaji Shankar Jadhav And Anr vs Laxman Gajanan Godbole Thr. His ... on 17 September, 2018

) Sh. Satish Kumar vs ) Smt. Daya Meena on 1 April, 2019

The issue as to whether an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC would be maintainable against an interlocutory order not incorporated in the sub­rule (a) to (w) came up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Appeal from Order (ST) No. 36523/2017 titled as 'Shivaji Shanker Jadhav v. Laxman Gajanan Godbole' decided on 06.02.2019. While discussing the scope of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble High Court observed that Section 104 of CPC restricts to those orders which are expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for time being in force. When there is an express provision, then it is to be restricted to what is mentioned expressly in the section and nothing can be borrowed as implied. Any other order which is not included in Order 43 Satish Kumar & Anr. v. Daya Meena & Ors. Page No.8/10 MCA No. 22/2018 Rule 1 sub­rules (a) to (w) is not appealable under Section 104 CPC as the list is exhaustive and not enumerative.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sham Baburao Kandekar vs Ulka Vitthalrao Bahirat And Ors on 25 February, 2019

2. Advocate Mr. Jaydeep Deo submits that he received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He require some time to file Vakalatnama. He further submits that by this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Pune below Exhibit-4 in Civil Appeal No.309 of 2016. He submits that against this order, the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shivaji Shankar Jadhav and Anr. Vs. Laxman Gajanan Godbole through his Power of S.C.Magar Page 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 12:37:23 ::: 55-wp-wp-8542-2017.doc Attorney Nikhil Dinkar Pawar 1.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K K Tated - Full Document

Shenaaz Ansari Bano vs Asif Shaikh on 5 August, 2022

2. At the outset, it is necessary to note that this was initially filed as a Writ Petition No.2577/2022. As per order dated 7 March 2022, passed by this Court (Nitin W. Sambre, J.), the appeal was converted into an appeal from order. This Court placing reliance on Shivaji Shankar Jadhav Vs. Laxman Gajanan Godbole1 had found that the appeal from order would be maintainable. In Shivaji Shankar Jadhav , the Division Bench of this Court has held that an order passed by the Appellate Court in an Appeal under Section 96 of the Code granting injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 would be appealable under Order XLIII. Strictly speaking, the order challenged in this case is not of granting injunction but of stay which is essentially passed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - C V Bhadang - Full Document

Girraj Singh Son Of Shri Jadveer Singh @ ... vs Ramesh Chand Son Of Shri Jagan Prasad on 9 May, 2024

It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the regular first appeal along-with temporary injunction application before the Appellate Court against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Appellate Court vide order dated 18.01.2024 dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff. In my considered opinion, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable because it is an interlocutory order and the appeal is also pending consideration before the Appellate Court. The judgment passed in the case of Shivaji Shankar Jadhav(Supra) relied by counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable in the present case because in the said case, regular civil appeal was filed and the present case pertains to civil miscellaneous appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being non- maintainable is disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N S Dhaddha - Full Document
1