Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Gowri Koer vs Audh Koer And Ors. on 1 September, 1884

Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Kedar Nath Haldar on 12 September, 1928

18. Now in the present case I am by no means satisfied that there has been any change in the current of decisions comparable with the change which was considered in the case cited. But I am clearly of opinion that the reasoning which Maclean, C.J., and Holmwood, J., adopted in the case mentioned is erroneous. The Legislature by Statute may alter the rights of parties and when it does so, it makes such provision as it thinks proper to prevent injustice. Courts of Law are in no way authorized to alter the rights of parties. They profess, at all events, to ascertain the law, and if the binding character of a decision upon a concrete question as to the terms of a particular holding is to fluctuate with every alteration in the current of authority the Courts will become an instrument for the unsettlement of rights rather than for the ascertainment thereof. The principle relied upon is abhorrent to Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, and to the general intention of the doctrine of res judicata. If authority be wanted for its rejection a very plain authority can be found in the case of Gowri Koer v. Audh Kuar 10 C. 1087.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Raosaheb G. Shinde vs Kum.Bharati V. Paithankar & Anr on 12 August, 2010

Now in the present case I am by no means satisfied that there has been any change in the current of decisions comparable with the change which was considered in the case cited. But I am clearly of opinion that the reasoning which Maclean, C.J., and Holmwood, J., adopted in the case mentioned is erroneous. The legislature by statute, may alter the rights of parties and when it does so, it makes such provision as it thinks proper to prevent injustice. Courts of law are in no way authorized to alter the rights of parties. They profess, at all events, to ascertain the law, and if the binding character of a decision upon a concrete question as to the term of particular holding is to fluctuate with every alteration in the current of authority, the courts will become an instrument for the unsettlement of rights rather than for the ascertainment ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:16:37 ::: 7 cap8-10 thereof. The principle relied upon is abhorrent to S. 11, Civil P.C., and to the general intention of the doctrine of res judicata. If authority be wanted for its rejection a very plain authority can be found in the case of Gowri Koer v. Audh Kuar (1884) 10 Cal.1087.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document

Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Kedar Nath Haldar on 12 September, 1928

17. Now in the present case I am by no means satisfied that there has been any change in the current of decisions comparable with the change which was considered in the case cited. But I am clearly of opinion that the reasoning which Maclean, C.J., and Holmwood, J., adopted in the case mentioned is erroneous. The legislature by statute, may alter the rights of parties and when it does so, it makes such provision as it thinks proper to prevent injustice. Courts of law are in no way authorized to alter the rights of parties. They profess, at all events, to ascertain the law, and if the binding character of a decision upon a concrete question as to the terms of a particular holding is to fluctuate with every alteration in the current of authority the Courts will become an instrument for the unsettlement of rights rather than for the ascertainment thereof. The principle relied upon is abhorrent to Section 11, Civil P.C. and to the general intention of the doctrine of res judicata, If authority be wanted for its rejection a very plain authority can be found in the case of Gowri Koer v. Audh Kuar [1884] 10 Cal. 1087.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sanichar Mahton And Ors. vs Raja Dhakeshwar Prasad Narain Singh on 29 July, 1929

In this connection I would refer to the observations of Sir Richard Garth, C.J., in Gowri Koer v. Audh Koer 10 C. 1087. His Lordship in delivering the judgment of the Full Bench has observed: "But although those learned Judges may have made a mistake in point of law, in the decision at which they arrived in 1873, their decision upon the point at issue is nevertheless a res judicata as between the parties, and it is no less a res judicata, because it may have been founded on an erroneous view of the law, or a view of the law which this Court has subsequently disapproved."
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1