Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 97 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree on 26 September, 2008

Afzal Imam vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 April, 2011

In the case of Durgesh Sharma versus Jayshree (supra), this Court held that section 23 must be read subject to section 25 and even if the High Court had the power to transfer a case from one State to another, that must be taken to have been withdrawn from 1.1.1997 when the Amending Act of 1976 came into force. The Amending Act had failed to delete section 23 (3) and therefore this Court had to make it clear that section 23 (3) will be subject to section 25 of the Act. In para 55 of the judgment, C.K. Thakker, J. held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Rithu Sebastian vs Dr.Robin Thomas on 27 July, 2016

But in the decision reported in Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree Sharma (2008(9) SCC 648)=(2008 KHC 4883), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if two courts are subordinate to different High Court, one High Court has no power/jurisdiction or authority to transfer a case pending in any court subordinate to that High Court to the Court Subordinate to other High Court, it is only the Supreme Court which may order the transfer. The scope of section 23, 24, and 25 of Code of Civil Procedure has been considered in that decision and held that in such circumstances, the apex court alone has got power to transfer the case from a court subordinate to one High Court to another court subordinate to another High Court and High Courts have no power to transfer the case invoking section 23(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Smt M Lakshmi Prasanna Kumara, ... vs Sri M Vijay Kumar Raju, E.Godavari Dist on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tejaswini, Visakhapatnam vs T Ramu, Hyderabad on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Anumasha Sirsha, Kothagudem Dist vs Anumasa Pradeep Kumar, Nizamabad Dist on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venkata Haritha Muthyala, ... vs Rajesh Mutyala, Ranga Reddy Dist on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N Shobarani, Kadapa Dist vs N Gopal, Kurnool Dist on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. T Hema Mani, Krishna Dist vs T. Shiva Shankar Reddy, Sangareddy Dist on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mutyala Rajesh, Ranga Reddy Dist vs M Venkata Haritha, Visakhapatnam on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Maroju Swarna Kumari, Khammam Dist vs Maroju Suresh, Miryalguda, Miryalguda on 6 December, 2018

In Durgesh Sharma v Jayshree54, the Court held that the power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings from one Court to other by the Courts subordinate to it was questioned. Husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court at Ujjain for dissolution of marriage on various grounds. Wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Malegaon for maintenance as she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge, Senior Citizen, Malegaon, but the Court held that if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer the case pending in any Court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court and it is only the Apex Court to consider the transfer petition.
Telangana High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next