Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 362 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Banarsi And Ors vs Ram Phal on 17 February, 2003

Suresh Kumar Kankariya vs K.Jigibai @ Pushpammal

In Banarsi v. Ram Phal [Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606] , it has been observed that the amendment inserted in 1976 is clarificatory and three situations have been adverted to therein. Category 1 deals with the impugned decree which is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondent. Dealing with such a situation, the Bench observed that in such a case, the respondent must file an appeal or take cross- objection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though he is entitled to support that part of the decree which is in his favour without taking any cross-objection. In respect of two other categories which deal with a decree entirely in favour of the respondent though an issue had been decided against him or a decree entirely in favour of the respondent where all the issues had been answered in his favour but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against him, in the pre-amendment stage, he could not take any cross- objection as he was not a person aggrieved by the decree. But post-amendment, read in the light of the Explanation to sub-rule (1), though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection laying challenge to any finding adverse to him as the decree is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26 SA Nos.568 and 569 of 2012 entirely in his favour, yet he may support the decree without cross-objection. It gives him the right to take cross-objection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing with an issue. It is apt to note that after the amendment in the Code, if the appeal stands withdrawn or dismissed for default, the cross-objection taken to a finding by the respondent would still be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent under the unamended Code.” (emphasis supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

V.Raveendran vs Capt.S.K.Joshua on 25 April, 2014

39.As illustrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2003)9 SCC 606 [Banarsi and others vs. Ram Phal], the necessity to file the cross appeal or objection, arises only when the impugned decree is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondents and in other cases, namely when the decree is entirely in favour of the respondent, though an issue has been decided against the respondent or whether when the decree is entirely in favour of the respondents and all the issues are answered in favour of the respondent, but there is a finding against the respondents, there is no need to file cross appeal or objection and only it is an optional, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objection, adverse finding against the respondents can be challenged by the respondents in the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, I answered the point No.1 in favour of the 3rd respondent and held that even in the absence of cross objection or appeal, the 3rd respondent is entitled to challenge the findings given in Issue Nos.2 and 3 by the trial court that the appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of their contract.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document

Abdul Jabbar (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... vs Bani Bai (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. Soni ... on 18 June, 2025

In Banarsi v. Ram Phal, it has been observed that the amendment inserted in 1976 is clarificatory and three situations have been adverted to therein. Category 1 deals with the impugned decree which is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondent. Dealing with such a situation, the Bench observed that in such a case, it is necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take cross objection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though he is entitled to support that part of the decree which is in his favour without taking any cross-objection. In respect of two other categories which deal with a decree entirely in favour of the respondent though an issue had been decided against him or a decree entirely in favour of the respondent where all the issues had been answered in his favour but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against him, in the pre-amendment stage, he could not take any cross-objection as he was not a person aggrieved by the decree. But post-amendment, read in the light of the Explanation to sub-rule (1),
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Shri Vignahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ... vs Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited on 2 February, 2023

"27. The effect of the amendment was considered in Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal, where this Court held that after the 1976 amendment, the respondent could file cross-objections against the 'findings' of the lower court, while previously cross-objections could only be filed when the decree of the lower court was partly against the respondent. Justice R.C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for the two judge bench observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Bhimf vs Shri. Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar ... on 2 February, 2023

"27. The effect of the amendment was considered in Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal, where this Court held that after the 1976 amendment, the respondent could file cross-objections against the 'findings' of the lower court, while previously cross-objections could only be filed when the decree of the lower court was partly against the respondent. Justice R.C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for the two judge bench observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

This Petition Has Been Filed By The vs Ram Phal. He Would Further Submit In His ... on 19 August, 2009

3.The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:- The 3rd defendant/petitioner herein falsely claims that she was having right of possession over the suit property and actually there was no right for the 3rd defendant/petitioner in the suit property and she was not aggrieved by the decree passed by the Lower Court and she has no locus standi to file any appeal. He would rely upon the Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1989 between Banarsi and others Vs. Ram Phal. He would further submit in his argument that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not sufficient to condone the delay of 371 days. The plea of the petitioner that the condonation of the delay should be liberally considered can not be applied to the petitioner, since she was aware of the passing of Judgment and Decree and the blame levelled by her against the respondents 2 & 3 was not shown to be true and therefore there was no bonafide on the part of the petitioner and in such circumstances claim for condonation of delay of 371 days need not be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Ayyasamy vs Prithiviraj …

23. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the finding arrived at by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court is not in accordance with the properties purchased either by the plaintiff and the defendants since both the properties were purchased from the common ancestor. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi and others vs. Ram Phal reported in 2003 (2) MLJ 160 (SC), is not applicable to the facts of the present http://www.judis.nic.in case. But, the First Appellate Court, by applying the said ratio, allowed the appeal, by confirming the findings of the trial Court.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Pongiappan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next