Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Ramabai And Ors. vs Harbilas And Ors. on 22 January, 1996

Sukanti Kanhar vs Sh. Ranjita Patra on 2 January, 2018

Similarly, taking into consideration the decisions referred to Balaswaraswami Varu and another v. Mallidi Dorayya and others, AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh, 250, Assam State Transport Corporation v. Smt. Michitribala Das, AIR 1994 Gauhati 35, Smt Ramabai and others v. Harbilas and other, AIR 1997 Madhya Pradesh 90 (supra), this Court finds once there is a remand of a proceeding with specific direction involving a particular issue, the trial court becomes bound by the same. Therefore, the decisions referred to hereinabove have also support to the case of the petitioner.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

B. Chandravathi Shetty D/O Late B. Loku ... vs B. Seetharama Shetty S/O B. Loku Shetty ... on 21 February, 2008

In the case of Ramabai v. Harbilas , it has been held that under the order of remand passed by the appellate court, the trial court has limited jurisdiction depending upon the terms of remand order and it can decide the suit only in view of the direction issued by the appellate and it is well settled that the court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law and further, the order of remand had to be followed in its true spirit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

C. Pandit Rao And Ors. vs Vihwakarma Association (Sangam) Rep. ... on 20 July, 2004

In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decision of our High Court in BALASWARASWAMI VARU AND ANOTHER VS. MALLIDI DORAYYA AND OTHERS, , the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in SMT. RAMABAI AND OTHERS v. HARBILAS AND OTHER, and the decision of Supreme Court in PROFULLA CHORONE REQUITTE AND OTHERS v. SATYA CHORON REQUITTE, AIR 1979 S.C. 1682.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Om Prakash Sharma vs Raj Rani on 3 December, 2004

6.The ambit and scope of the enquiry by the Controller was therefore limited to the alternative accommodation. It is the admitted case of the parties before me that on the date of filing of the eviction petition the case of the landlord stood proved. In other words, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted, premises let out for residential purposes was admitted, premises required bonafidely for residence of the landlord and his son dependent on him was admitted and it was also admitted that n that day there was no alternative accommodation available with the son of the landlord which could be taken into consideration as being the suitable alternative accommodation for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, counsel for the respondent vehemently argues that the Controller could have extended his enquiry into re-appreciating the material on record to go into the previous conduct of the landlord to reopen the question of bona fide requirement. This with great respect to counsel cannot be done. The scope and ambit of the trial court on a remand if restricted cannot be enlarged. Reference may be had to Konappa Mudaliar Vs. Kusalaru alias Munuswami Pillai and Ors. , Balaswaraswami Varu and Anr. Vs. Mallidi Doraya and Ors. , Smt.Ramabai and Ors. Vs. Harbilas and Ors. , Mohan Lal Vs. Anandibai and Ors. and K.Veerabasappa Vs. The Court of Dist. Judge at Chitradurga and Ors. .
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 1 July, 2014

25.7. that it is the well settled principle of law that the Court, to which the case is remanded, has to comply with the remand order. Hence, the Central Commission was bound by the remand order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to act within the scope of the remand order. It was not open to the Central Commission to do anything except to carry out the terms of remand order in letter and spirit. It is also well settled that the Court, to which the case is remanded, has to comply with the order of the remand and acting contrary to the order of remand is contrary to law as 22 held in the case of Ramabai V. Harbilas, AIR 1997 M.P. 90. Thus, it was not open to the Central Commission to go into the extraneous issues apart from the scope of the remand order.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs Prahalad Das on 9 September, 2024

12. The petitioners / plaintiffs have referred Ramabai and Others Vs. Harbilas and Other reported in 1996 (1) MPJR 390, Smt. Kishori Devi and Others Vs. Rameshwar Prasad reported in AIR 2017 Patna 187, order dated 21/09/2015 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Second Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 13-09-2024 13:09:06 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26153 8 M. P. No.2035/2023 Appeal No.2100/2005 (Nandlal and Others Vs. Bhura (Dead) through LR and Anr.), Banarasi Vs. Ram Phal reported in AIR 2003 SC 1989 and Harbans Singh and Others Vs. Sant Hari Singh and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 526.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramprasad vs Satish on 14 September, 2015

The reliance placed upon by counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rukhmanand Vs. Dinbandhu & Others, reported in 1971 JLJ Short Note 159 and in the matter of Smt. Ramabai Vs. Harbilas reported in 1996(I) MPJR 390, is misconceived since those judgments are distinguishable on their own facts and are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1