Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing My Palace Mutually Aided Co Operative ... vs B. Mahesh on 23 August, 2022

Nisha Malhotra vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 8 November, 2024

2024.11.08 15:21:04 +0530 Ld. counsel for the appellants has stated that this issue was earlier raised by the respondents before this Court and was decided by the order dated 04.05.2023 observing that appellants is entitled to get her lis adjudicated on merits on the basis of observations made by Hon'ble High Court on the writ petition filed by the appellants. It is stated that as appellants are owners of the other half portion of the plot where the construction has been raised by respondents no.2 and 3, they are aggrieved party, hence, entitled to file this appeal. It is stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs B. Mahesh & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 574/2022 @ facility (Civil No.7015/2022) has categorically held that a person can file an appeal if aggrieved by an order even if he is not a party to the main suit. The relevant paras 29 and 31 are reproduced as follows:-
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr.Ajeesh Kumar vs Mrs.Shailaja on 16 December, 2024

18.At this stage, I have to refer to the submission of Mr.Loyola that Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B.Mahesh & Ors, 2022 SCC online SC 1063 had held that an application under Section 151 cannot be resorted to when there is specific provision under law. The Supreme Court had referred to earlier Judgment of the very same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/14 C.R.P.(PD)No.5053 of 2024 Court and had come to a conclusion that when there is a specific provision in the Code, then resort to Section 151 should not be made. I should point out here that the aforesaid judgment did not arise out of matrimonial proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakshabai (Devi) vs Kunjbihari S/O Lt. Gajanand Swarnkar ... on 30 January, 2025

13. From the arguments as has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners, it seems that entire focus is on the provisions of Section 10 of CPC and when that is the case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of My Palace Mutually Aided Co- operative Society Vs. B.Mahesh & Others (supra), the said application cannot be said to be maintainable, as in the said judgment, it has been held that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provision of CPC. Further, it has been held that Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief of any kind rather it is a mere procedural provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Altamish @ Monu vs Aasiya Khatoon on 11 January, 2024

05. I have given my thoughtful consideration to different aspects of the matter. The authority cited by the plaintiffs/respondents in the case of My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh and Ors. (supra) is pronouncement of general principles governing application of Section 151 of the CPC. Now, when it is the admitted case of the plaintiffs/respondents that the defendant/petitioner was in the possession of the suit property and there is further admission about the dispossession of the defendant, equity demands that the defendant is not forced to further litigate in the matter and the defendant should be put into possession of the area from which he has been dispossessed.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A K Jha - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

The Petitioner relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. 45 and submitted that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 of CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provison of CPC. In view of said submission of the Petitioner, it is significant to note the order passed by Delhi High Court in said IA No.17530/2013 on 8th April, 2015. The Delhi High Court in the said order dated 8th April, 2015 has 45 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1063 85 wp 1517.2022 .doc specifically observed that the Respondent No.4 has filed application under Section 151 of CPC however, Delhi High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 124 of the 1999 Act. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the said application was filed under Section 151 of CPC and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as application under Section 124 of the said Act has no substance. It is settled legal position that what is important is the substance of the application and not the section which is mentioned in the application. Order dated 8th April 2015 of the Delhi High Court clearly shows that although in the stay application, Respondent No. 4 has mentioned Section 151 of CPC, however, the Delhi High Court has passed order under Section 124 of the 1999 Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 February, 2023

The Petitioner relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors. 45 and submitted that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 of CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provison of CPC. In view of said submission of the Petitioner, it is significant to note the order passed by Delhi High Court in said IA No.17530/2013 on 8th April, 2015. The Delhi High Court in the said order dated 8th April, 2015 has 45 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1063 85 ::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/06/2023 01:04:32 ::: wp 1517.2022 .doc specifically observed that the Respondent No.4 has filed application under Section 151 of CPC however, Delhi High Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 124 of the 1999 Act. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the said application was filed under Section 151 of CPC and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as application under Section 124 of the said Act has no substance. It is settled legal position that what is important is the substance of the application and not the section which is mentioned in the application. Order dated 8th April 2015 of the Delhi High Court clearly shows that although in the stay application, Respondent No. 4 has mentioned Section 151 of CPC, however, the Delhi High Court has passed order under Section 124 of the 1999 Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next