Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Vuppuluri Atchayya And Ors., Voppuluri ... vs Kanchumarti Venkata Seetarama Chandra ... on 28 November, 1912

Venkataramnjulu Naidu And Anr. vs Ramaswami Naidu on 20 July, 1915

7. In the present case, the allegation in the plaint being that proper notice to quit had been given to the defendant, the jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Cause Court over the suit was clearly not taken away by any provision of the Common or the Statute Law and the Small Cause Judge did not clutch at jurisdiction through any error of law committed by him. The decision in Vuppuluri Atchayya v. Sir Kanchumarti Venkata Seetarama Chandra Mao 18 Ind. Cas. 555 : 24 M.L.J. 112 : 13 M.L.T. 60 does not apply, therefore, to this case and the learned Judge of this Court whose decision is appealed against bad, therefore, no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115 with the judgment of the Small Cause Court. I agree, therefore, that this appeal should be allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kalliya Pillai Alias Sernthaya Pillai ... vs Ramaswamy Pillai (Insane) By Wife And ... on 10 January, 1929

10. I agree that the preliminary objection that this petition is barred by Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act cannot be upheld. In this petition we are asked to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge. It cannot be said that the Subordinate Judge in this case, did not when he was hearing the appeal before him, exercise on account of any over-valuation or under valuation a jurisdiction which he had not got. He was bound to hear the appeal before him. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the petitioners here, want to escape by this petition the disposal of suit by a Court which has no jurisdiction. So far as the further objection goes, that we cannot interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure with an order such as that made by the learned Subordinate Judge, that is concluded by the opinion of the Full Bench in Vuppuluri Atchayya v. Kanchumarti Venkata Seetarama Chandra Rao 18 Ind. Cas. 555 : 39 M. 195 : 13 M.L.T. 60 : 24 M.L.J. 112
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ram Iqbal Rai vs Telessari Kuari And Anr. on 27 June, 1930

In a somewhat similar case, Vuppuluri Atchayya v. Sir Kanchumarli Chandra Rao [1916] 39 Mad. 195 Wallis, C.J., came to the conclusion that the High Court could interfere under the third part of Section 115, whereas Sundara Ayyar, J., came to the conclusion that he could interfere under the first part, but a third Judge thought that none of the two parts of the section was applicable. It seems to me that in a case of this kind the order of the Judge amounts both to an assumption of jurisdiction which was not vested in him, namely to compel a Court not competent to try a case to hear it, as well as to acting illegally in directing that Court to dispose of the suit. The High Court therefore has power to interfere.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Banchhanidhi Maharatha vs Srinibass Paikroy And Ors. on 30 August, 1966

In all such cases, therefore, the complainant must approach the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate in the first instance. High Court will not entertain an application in relation to matter covered by Section 436, Cr. P. C. unless the party exhausts his remedy before the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate. This interdict is not based on any rule of law but on the accepted salutary principle that when two authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, the inferior one must be first approached. The position of the petitioner does not improve merely because the revision has been admitted by the High Court. It is for the petitioner to know the legal position and invoke the proper jurisdiction The principle is different where in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate cannot finally dispose of the case but shall have to make reference to the High Court Under Section 438, Cr. P. C. There is conflict of authority on this aspect of the case The position has been well summarised in AIR 1956 Andhra 87. Ramayya v. Venkata, where all relevant decisions have been referred to. Their Lord ships observed thus-
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Y. Chendrasekhara Rao And Ors. vs Y.V. Kamala Kumari And Ors. on 2 February, 1993

18. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Narayanan v. Kannamma, , after noticing the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Andhra High Court in Ramayya v. Venkata, doubted the soundness of the practice at page 614 (of (CRI LJ) : "We cannot shut our eyes to the glaring fact that the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate is incompetent to render adequate relief to an aggrieved party invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested in them under Section 435. If the Court is satisfied that the revision is frivolous, the petition will be dismissed, but on the other hand if it is satisfied that the order of the Subordinate Magistrate has to be vacated, report to that effect will have to be forwarded to this Court under Section 438. In either case, the party will have to appear in this Court and present his case again. It is true that if the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge reports in favour of the accused, he need not be represented in the High Court, particularly when the illegality of the conviction, or the severity of the sentence is patent. But, as a general rule the accused is also served with notice on the reference, and he appears either personally or through pleader. In all cases where the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate refuses to make a reference, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court ....."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Buddala Veerabhadra Rao vs Duddumpudi Venkatraju And Ors. on 23 December, 1964

The learned Judges of the Full Bench referred to the earlier decision of the Division Bench in (S) AIR 1056 Andhra 97 (supra) and observed as follows: (at p. 380) The learned Judges expressed the opinion that the practice in vogue in all the High Courts except Madras would carry out the intention of the Legislature and would better serve the interests of the public from the administrative and judicial points of view. We think that no further elaboration is needed and that this ruling embodies the correct principle and should be adhered to. The Legislature has advisedly conferred co-ordinate jurisdiction on the several authorities in regard to these matters and there is no reason why effect should not be given to legislative intent. There does not seem to be any justification to permit parties to by-pass the lower Courts and resort to the High Court straight way without sufficient grounds.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Narayanaswami And Ors. vs Egappa Reddi And Ors. on 13 February, 1962

(1) Petition by the accused in G. C. No. 34 of on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Trivellore, to revise the order of the Sub-Magistrate holding that there is nothing illegal in entertaining and proceeding with the joint complaint filed by the respondents. The learned advocate for the respondents raised a preliminary objection on the strength of the decision in Ramayya v. Venkata, (S) AIR 1956 Andhra 97, that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere In revision when the petitioners have not approached the District Magistrate or Sessions Judge to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Anantha Lakshmi Ammall vs Kunnanchankarath Sankaran Nair on 3 January, 1913

and Vuppuluri Atchayya v. Kanchumarti Venkata Sitarama Chandra Rao 13 M.L.T. 60; 18 Ind. Cas. 555; 21. 112. An error of this kind has been treated as coming within the purview of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, in several of the cases, relating to Section 310A of the old Code. We do not consider it necessary to refer to the cases cited on both sides with reference to the scope of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

P.K.Vijayan vs T.A.Jayaprabha

15. This view of ours derive support from the precedents. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Atchayya v. Venkata (AIR 1915 Madras 1223) had occasion to consider a similar issue. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court noticed a direct conflict between two Division Bench decisions in respect of the expression "acted illegally" occurred earlier in Section 115 of the Code. The questions formulated for reference are as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.K.Vijayan vs T.A.Jayaprabha

15. This view of ours derive support from the precedents. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Atchayya v. Venkata (AIR 1915 Madras 1223) had occasion to consider a similar issue. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court noticed a direct conflict between two Division Bench decisions in respect of the expression "acted illegally" occurred earlier in Section 115 of the Code. The questions formulated for reference are as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next