Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Madan Lal vs Mst. Gopi & Anr on 29 August, 1980

Lallu Prasad Jaiswal vs Smt. Mantora Bai on 19 August, 2016

11. In the instant case, the trial Court by its order dated 14-09- 2012 rejected the application under Order 22 Rule 3 and also Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC and dismissed the suit as abated. Since the trial Court has declined to set aside the abatement and dismissed the suit abated, I am of the considered opinion that the provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1 (k) of the CPC is attracted and the appeal filed before the First Appellate Court against the rejection of application under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC was clearly maintainable. The First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC 3 . A.I.R. 1993 M.P. 145 C.R. No.51 of 2016 6 as the impugned order is contrary to provisions contained in Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC as well as the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Naik vs. Mst.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rameshbhai Maljibhai Patel vs Swami Hariprasad Guru Keshavnandji on 29 September, 2000

9.6 As regards the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal v. Gopi and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1754, wherein even in case of concurrent findings of fact, interference by the High Court was not interfered with by the Apex Court, Mrs. Mehta submitted that the said decision was rendered by the Apex Court in special facts of that case and that Their Lordships were unequivocal about the fact that the said decision cannot be understood to be a charter for interference by the High Courts with the findings of facts recorded by the final Court of facts. She, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

International Speciality Products ... vs Asst Cit 15(2)(1), Mumbai on 6 June, 2019

"23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See Madan Lal v. Gopi, Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, Commr. of Customs v. Vijay Dasharath Patel, Metroark Ltd. v. CCE and W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd)"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Asst Cit 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs Pangea3 Legal Database P.Ltd, Mumbai on 25 June, 2019

"23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See Madan Lal v. Gopi, Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, Commr. of Customs v. Vijay Dasharath Patel, Metroark Ltd. v. CCE and W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd)"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Sajid Khan vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 13 August, 2019

"23. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. (See Madan Lal Vs Gopi, (1980) 4 S.C.C. 255), Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Vs Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009) 3 S.C.C. 287, Commr of Customs Vs Vijay Dasharath Patel, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 118, Metroark Ltd Vs CCE, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 105 and W.B. Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd. (2002) 8 S.C.C. (715).
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - B Sapru - Full Document

Bhagwandas Sendharam Panchal (Heir Of ... vs Heirs Of Deceased Kantilal Keshavlal ... on 29 June, 2022

23. Moreover, although, a finding of fact can be interfered with when it is perverse, but, it is also trite that where the courts below have ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances and allowed the judgment to be influenced by inconsequential matters, the High Court would be justified in considering the matter and in coming to its own independent conclusion. (See Madan Lal v. Gopi.)
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Kartey Singh vs Iftikhar Ahmad on 18 August, 1981

The court below set aside that finding. Both the courts have considered the evidence. It is well settled that this Court in second appeal cannot interfere with a finding of fact howsoever grossly erroneous it may seem to be unless it can be shown that the finding is vitiated by error of law or procedure. Mr. Bhargava referred to a recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal v. Gopi (AIR 1980 SC 1754) to urge that when the court below ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances and allowed their judgments to be influenced bv inconsequential matters, the High Court would be justified in reappreciating the evidence and in coming to its own independent conclusions. The point in controversy in the above case whether one Mansaram was in a fit state of mind when he executed the deed of adoption. Their Lordships observed that this was substantially a question of fact but the courts below ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances on the record and allowed their judgment to be influenced by inconsequential matters. Mr. Bhargava's contention was that the instrument in question was executed in the year 1972 and it bore revenue stamps of the year 1961 and had been affixed with refugee relife stamp which came into circulation after the alleged date of the execution of the instrument. It was a wholly got up document and in any event had been ante-dated and the court below had not taken into consideration the attending circumstances and its finding on the question of forgery was patently erroneous. I have heard Mr. R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondent also on this point and I think it will be appropriate to consider this point later.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.S. Adityan And Ors. vs Fencing Association Of India, Jabalpur ... on 7 September, 1990

Again, in the case of Madan Naik v. Mst. Hansubala Devi, AIR 1983 SC 676, it has been observed in paragraph 11 of the report that frankly speaking, no appeal would He under Letters Patent against a decision rendered by the High Court in an appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. The Court further observed that this is one good ground to quash the decision of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal. But this is not all. This Court and various other High Court too had an occasion to consider the question of competence of a Letters Patent Appeal from an Order of a learned single Judge of the High Court passed in appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 read with Section 104 Sub-section (2) of the Code which shall be discussed by us in paragraphs hereinafter.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Faizanuddin - Full Document

Dr. Mahesh Chandra Choubey vs M.M. Dubey And Ors. on 21 April, 1994

On the other, all these decisions, except Shrichand Komalchand Jain's case (supra), in their turn seem to have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, AIR 1981 SC 1786 and another decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madan Naik v. Mst. Hansubala Devi, AIR 1983 SC 676. Therefore, in order to have an authoritative and fianl pronouncement with regard to the correct law in this regard with regard to the maintainability of the L.P.A. under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for decision and that is how this Full Bench has been constituted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next