Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Gani Shah Mohammad Died Trs Lrs ... vs Saraswati Babanrao Shelke And Others on 4 February, 2021

Mona Arora W/O. Jitender Kumar vs M/S S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. on 4 December, 2025

12. Counsel for the respondent also contended that none of the reasons listed by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal constitute substantial question of law as elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan (deceased) through LRs Vs. Saraswati and Ors,. He further contended that scope in Second Appeal is limited and in this case, both the Foras have given concurrent findings on complainant being in default and not entitled to interest.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mona Arora W/O. Jitender Kumar vs M/S S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. on 4 December, 2025

12. Counsel for the respondent also contended that none of the reasons listed by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal constitute substantial question of law as elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan (deceased) through LRs Vs. Saraswati and Ors,. He further contended that scope in Second Appeal is limited and in this case, both the Foras have given concurrent findings on complainant being in default and not entitled to interest.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Usha Rani vs Thulasi on 17 April, 2024

10.Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the findings of the impugned common judgment and decree affects the rights of the appellants, who are the plaintiff and the fifth defendant in the suit. As the respondents have questioned the entitlement of the appellants as prayed for in the preliminary decree despite the fact that the said preliminary decree for partition has attained finality by the judgment dated 02.11.2012 passed in the Second Appeal by this Court in S.A. No.589 of 2009, the act of the respondents, without challenging the preliminary decree for partition, which has attained finality, in introducing a Will by which they claim rights over the suit properties, despite they themselves having conceded before this Court in S.A. No.589 of 2009 that there is no Will existing, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/14 C.M.A.Nos.509 and 531 of 2021 will amount to abuse of process of Court and law. The test required as laid down by the decision, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Chandrabhan (deceased) through LRs and others v. Saraswati reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601 has been fully satisfied by the appellants in these present appeals. By total non-application of mind to the findings of this Court rendered in the judgment dated 02.11.2012 passed in S.A. No.589 of 2009, the Lower Appellate Court in the impugned judgment has entertained the appeals filed by the defendants 2 to 4 and has passed the order of remand despite the fact that the preliminary decree for partition passed in the suit has already attained finality.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Sri Bidhan Chandra Nath vs Sri Santosh Debnath on 24 February, 2025

However, in course of hearing, both the parties also relied upon one citation of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601 titled as Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs and others v. Saraswati and others dated 22.09.2022 wherein in the relevant para Nos.31, 32 and 33, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court discussed about the principles of substantial questions of law. I have also perused the said judgment. It appears that the proper test Page 38 of 39 for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of the general public importance or whether it is directly or indirectly substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the questions are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question of law would not be a substantial question of law. So, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one or involved in the case or not. The paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis and the High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law.
Tripura High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santosh vs Kamata Prasad on 15 January, 2026

1 5 ] From the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs (supra), Gurnam Singh (Dead) by LRs (supra) and Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs (supra), it is settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined strictly to cases involving a substantial question of law. Interference can only be done where the findings are vitiated by non-consideration of material or vital evidence, reliance upon inadmissible evidence, erroneous application of law, drawing of perverse or Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 8 SA-1036-2025 unreasonable inferences, or wrong casting of the burden of proof. A finding based on "no evidence" includes not only cases of total absence of evidence but also cases where the evidence, taken as a whole, is incapable of reasonably supporting the conclusion reached.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next