S.Dayalan @ Selvam vs D.Namratha
2)Sheel Chand vs. Prakash Chand reported in (1998)6 SCC 683,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 121 (0.85 seconds)Documents citing
Sheel Chand vs Prakash Chand on 1 September, 1998
T.Arokiadoss vs P.John Philip on 27 April, 2022
4)In the judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 3063 Sheel Chand Vs.
Prakash Chand, it is observed that,
Harchand vs Madhubai on 17 March, 2023
In Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 6 SCC 683
: AIR 1998 SC 3063], this Court held that question of
reappreciation of evidence and framing the substantial
question as to whether the findings relating to the factual
matrix by the court below could vitiate due to irrelevant
consideration and not under law, being question of fact
cannot be framed.
Munna vs Sukhvindi on 17 March, 2023
In Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 6
SCC 683 : AIR 1998 SC 3063], this Court held that
question of reappreciation of evidence and framing
the substantial question as to whether the findings
relating to the factual matrix by the court below
10
could vitiate due to irrelevant consideration and not
under law, being question of fact cannot be framed.
Ramakanna Naik vs Smt Annapurna on 27 July, 2023
question of law in light of the provisions contained in
Section 100 CPC has been reiterated in Panchugopal
Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami [(1997) 4 SCC 713]
, Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 6 SCC 683]
, Kanai Lal Garari v. Murari Ganguly [(1999) 6 SCC 35]
, Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [(2000) 1 SCC 434]
, Roop Singh v. Ram Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 708]
, Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC
179] , Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram [(2004) 6 SCC
359] , Sasikumar v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair [(2005)
12 SCC 588] , C.A. Sulaiman v. State Bank of
Travancore [(2006) 6 SCC 392] , Bokka Subba
Rao v. Kukkala Balakrishna [(2008) 3 SCC 99 : (2008) 1
SCC (Civ) 786] , Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy
Sarojini [(2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500]
and Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab
SEB [(2010) 13 SCC 216 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 861] .
Kirorilal vs Smt. Kishori Devi And Ors. on 6 August, 2004
In Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand, ((1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 683), it has been held that second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. can be heard only on substantial question of law and such substantial question of law must be formulated by the High Court.
Jwala Pratap Singh (Shri) vs Shri R.D. Mathur on 15 October, 2003
Similar view was taken in Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand (25), by the Supreme Court and it was held that pure question of fact cannot be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. In Ms. Labanya Neogi (through L.Rs.) v. W.B. Engineering Co. (26), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the question whether landlord requires premises for personal use and occupation is a question of fact and finding recorded by the first appellate court after considering the entire evidence on record is not liable to be interfered in second appeal.
Lallan Prasad vs Ram Kishun Prasad And Others on 12 October, 1999
JT 1997 (5) SC 202 and Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand, 1998 (2) ACJ 1595 (SC). Learned counsel for the appellants has on the other hand contended that the points raised have a serious bearing on the decision of the suit and, therefore, they are substantial questions of law justifying interference in a second appeal. He has also urged that it is not necessary that the questions of law should be of general importance and it is enough if the decision on the questions of law raised in the appeal entails a reversal of the decree passed by the Court below. The words "substantial questions of law" have not been defined in the Code. Section 110 of the old C.P.C. provided for an appeal to Privy Council on some "substantial question of law" in certain circumstances.
Manoranjan Das And Ors. vs Bishnupada Bhattacharya And Ors. on 22 July, 2004
33. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions relied on the decision (Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand).