Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Shobha & Ors on 19 October, 2006

Shashi Shekhar @ Neeraj vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 November, 2016

"25. It is a well-settled proposition of law that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". While exercising a statutory power a court is bound to act within the four corners of a statute. The statutory exercise of the power stands on a different pedestal than the power of judicial review vested in a court. The same has been upheld by this Court in Bay Berry Apartments (p) Ltd. v. Shoba (2006) 13 SCC 737, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of Orissa (2012) 5 SCC 690. It is the duty of the superior courts to follow the command of the statuary provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law."
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Mohd Mehandi Shah vs State on 11 November, 2021

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". While exercising a statutory power a court is bound to act within the four corners of the statute. The statutory exercise of the power stands on a different pedestal than the power of judicial review vested in a court. The same has been upheld by this Court in Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd. v. Shobha [(2006) 13 SCC 737] , U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [(2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of Orissa [(2012) 5 SCC 690 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] . It is the duty of the superior courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions Signature Not Verified Page 7 of 8 Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:11.11.2021 CRL.M.C. 2802/2021 17:45:37 which are permissible in law."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - C D Singh - Full Document

M/S. Devendra Construction Company vs The State Of Manipur on 10 March, 2022

On similar lines, in M/s. Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd and another vs. Shobha and others [(2006) 13 SCC 737], the Supreme Court observed that if the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit and if, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit keeping in view the subsequent event WA No.66 of 2021 Page 6 cannot be dismissed, then such subsequent events must also be considered. It was further observed that an appeal is in continuation of the suit and the appellate Court may take into consideration subsequent events with a view to mould the relief.
Manipur High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parchuri Sambasiva Rao And Ors. vs Parchuri Srinivasarao And Ors. on 23 April, 2007

26. It is true that the daughters who came on record as legal representatives of the deceased-3rd defendant cannot put forth any additional plea other than what had been put forth by the original defendant. It is also true that always such parties who were brought on record as legal representatives not to be equated with the original parties. It is also true that the daughters for the first time now are coming up with a plea that they are also entitled to their respective shares by moving an application ASMP No. 394 of 2002 praying for permission to file additional written statement on the strength of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Act specified supra. Strong reliance was placed on the decision reported in M/s. Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. 2007 (1) CCC 189 (SC), wherein the Apex Court at paragraph 35 emphasized of taking note of the subsequent events.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next