Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)

Rama Panicker Divakara Panicker Of ... vs Bakari Hydrose, Chennampilly And Ors. on 18 December, 1989

A dismissal in the absence of a party and not covered by the explanation to Rule 2 cannot come under Rule 3 simply because it was written on the merits by discussing the issues and evidence, if any (M. V. George v. S. M. R. Traders, 1980 Ker LT307 : (AIR 1980 Kerala 100)). Likewise, a decision falling under Rule 3 will not become one under Rule 2 simply because the Court has not written a detailed judgment considering the issues and evidence.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

S. Sundaram Pillai And Anr. vs S. Kannan And Anr. on 9 September, 1996

A dismissal in the absence of a party and not covered by the Explanation to Rule 2 cannot come under R3 simply because it was written on the merits by discussing the issues and evidence, if any M.V. George v. S.M.R Traders, . Likewise, a decision falling under Rule 3 will not become one under Rule 2 simply because the Court has not written a detailed judgment considering the issues and evidence."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

S.Arumugham vs The Municipal Council on 25 November, 2016

When the writ petition was posted for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner; the learned Counsel for the respondent-Municipality was heard and the writ petition disposed of. Admittedly there was no representation at the time when the writ petition was taken up for hearing. The review petition takes a ground relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1980 K. L. T. 307 [M.V.George V. S.M.S.Traders], that a judgment does not become a judgment on merits for reason only of the judgment being purportedly disposed of on merits. This Court is of the definite opinion that the the decision relied on is not at all applicable to the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document
1