Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Lalithakshi Annadanagouda vs Sadashivappa Basappa Patil And Anr. on 12 April, 1983

Swarup Kunvarba Balvantsinh Udavat vs Pratapsinh Nathusinh Jadeja on 31 August, 2000

In case of SMT. LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGONDA vs. SADASHIVPPA BASAPPA, reported in AIR 1984 KARNATAKA, 74, a well settled legal position is reiterated that wherein an application by the plaintiff for a temporary injunction against the defendant, trial court has, duly considered all matters and into proper exercise its judicial discretion, passed an order refusing the application for temporary injection, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the trial court, merely on the ground that another view is possible on the point.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shree. Samsthana vs U.F.M. Ananthraj on 24 August, 2020

43. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon this Court is not an appellate one but it is a combination to supervisory and equitable jurisdiction and to do justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. So also, the power of this Court, while exercising power under XLI Rule 1 CPC, interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is also noteworthy to follow the law enunciated by this Court, while examining the scope of an appeal filed under order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOUDA v. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in 1983(2) KLJ 298 and in the case of IIM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (supra). I am conscious of the proposition of law that the Appellate Court can interfere with an order of the trial Court, 65 only when it finds that the order passed is opposed to the well- settled principles in exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the factum of other two ingredients, viz.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri.Kshetra Upadhivanta Mandal vs U.F.M. Ananthraj S/O Dattatreya Adi on 24 August, 2020

43. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, upon this Court is not an appellate one but it is a combination to supervisory and equitable jurisdiction and to do justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. So also, the power of this Court, while exercising power under XLI Rule 1 CPC, interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is also noteworthy to follow the law enunciated by this Court, while examining the scope of an appeal filed under order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOUDA v. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in 1983(2) KLJ 298 and in the case of IIM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (supra). I am conscious of the proposition of law that the Appellate Court can interfere with an order of the trial Court, 65 only when it finds that the order passed is opposed to the well- settled principles in exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the factum of other two ingredients, viz.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.S.Abhiramaiah vs Smt.Saroj Bagaria on 16 January, 2023

26. Reliance was also placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Skyline Education Institute v/s S.L. Vaswani and Anr., reported (2010) 2 SCC 142 and on decision of this Court in Lalithakshi A. v/s Sadashivappa Basappa Patil and Anr., reported (1983) 2 KLJ 289, limits of exercise of jurisdiction by first appellate Court in appeal against discretionary orders. It was further submitted that plaintiff seeking temporary injunction in suit for specific performance was required to establish strong prima facie case based on undisputed facts.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Sri Shivananda Sharma vs Smt. Shantha Nagesha Rao on 28 July, 2023

30. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in SMT. LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOUDA VS. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA PATIL AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1984 KAR 74, wherein this Court discussed the several judgments of different Courts and held that principles laid down therein is undisputable and that only shows that appeal against discretionary order passed by the Trial Court is more in the nature of a revision and the Appellate Court should not likely to interfere with an order passed by the Trial Court in its judicial discretion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Iim Employees Association vs Indian Institute Of Management on 14 August, 1990

14. POINT No. 2: The scope of an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been considered in several decisions of this Court. But, I need not refer to all those decisions as after referring to all the earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, his Lordship G.N. Sabhahit, J. has observed in LALITHAKSHI ANNADANAGOWDA v. SADASHIVAPPA BASAPPA AND ANR 1983(2) KLJ 239. in paragraph-9 at page 292 as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Shri Suresh Kumar Bhargava vs Smt. Bhanwar Kumari & Anr on 10 April, 2007

18. Findings laid down in cases of Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Jang Bahadur, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 196; Shri Hridas Mondal Vs. Sahadeb Mondal, AIR 1980 Calcutta 140; Smt. Lalithakshi Annadaagouda Vs Sadashivapa Basappa Patil and another, AIR 1984 Karnataka 24 and Guru Nanak Education Trust (Regd.), Model Town, Ludhiana and others Vs Shri Balbir Singh and others, AIR 1995 P & H 290 also support the case of the defendant No.1 on the point that findings of lower court on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss can only be altered if these are based against the settled principles of law.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Jagadishwari vs Smt. M Revathi on 19 January, 2024

15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Lalithakshi Annadanagouda vs. Sadashivappa Basappa Patil and another reported in AIR 1984 KAR 74 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.8 with regard to the scope of Appellate Court - when the authority of the Appellate Court while dealing with a discretionary order passed by the trial Court, the Court has to take into note of whether that exercise is based on its discretion and if trial Court has acted unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant fact and has adopted an unjudicious approach, then it would certainly be open to the appellate Court and in many cases it may be its duty to interfere with the trial Court's exercise of jurisdiction. He also brought to the notice of this paragraph No.15 wherein, this Court observed that the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court, simply because, it was reasonably possible to take another view on the facts of the case. The first appellate Court has substituted its own discretion substituting the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court. It could not do so, it had to stay its hands and confirm the order passed by the trial
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1   2 Next