Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Sebi vs Arihant Exim Scrip Pvt. Ltd. And Doe ... on 19 January, 2005

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Anindita Debnath (Roy) And Ors. on 8 June, 2007

18. The Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Arihant Catsyn Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 498, paragraph 4 has observed that revisional jurisdiction of High Court could always be exercised where the subordinate court is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and for the purpose of keeping the subordinate court within bounds when the subordinate court has assumed jurisdiction which it did not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have. Since the instance case, keeping in view the grounds and the relief prayed, not falling under any of the enumerated categories, therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is uncalled for.
Gauhati High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R B Misra - Full Document

State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Parul Das @ Parul D'Souza And Ors. on 15 June, 2007

14. The Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Arihant Cotsyn Ltd. (2005) 13 SCC 498, paragraph 4 has observed that revisional jurisdiction of High Court could always be exercised where the subordinate court is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and for the purpose of keeping the subordinate court within bounds when the sub-ordinate court has assumed jurisdiction which it did not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have. Since the instance case keeping in view the grounds and the relief prayed, not falling under any of the enumerated categories, therefore, interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is uncalled for.
Gauhati High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document

Banu Mithra vs M.Balu on 9 February, 2009

Further, he cites the decision SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. AND OTHERS, (2005) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 498 at pg.499, wherein the Honourable High Court has held that 'the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.227 and 226 can always be exercised where the Subordinate Court is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and for the purpose of keeping the Subordinate Court within bounds when the Subordinate Court has assumed jurisdiction which it did not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have, etc.,' Also on the side of the revision petitioners, the decision ALAGI ALAMELU ACHI VS. PONNAIYA MUDALIYAR, AIR 1962 MADRAS 149 is relied on to the effect that 'person in wrongful possession is entitled to injunction against the lawful owner.'
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Sri Samarendra Prasad Bhowmick & Anr vs Sri Shyamalendra Prasad Bhowmick & Ors on 13 January, 2011

d) Lastly, Mr. Bhattacharya has referred to the decision of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Arihant Cotsyn Ltd. & ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 498 over the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. After due consideration of the above submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that mistake did not occur on the part of the Court at all, but it was a mistake on the part of the plaintiffs. At the time of filing of the amended plaint instead of describing the premises no. 38/1A/H-58, it was wrongly recorded as 38/1A/H-56, that is, the last figure had been changed from 58 to 56. In this context, it may be numbered that the instant suit is a suit for partition and so, it is expected that each party must be interested to have his share separated from the others. While describing the suit property, the old premises no., that is, formerly known as 38/1A/47 had been described everywhere and even the preliminary decree passed, lays down the former premises number as 38/1A/47. There is no dispute about it that the premises in suit was formerly known as 38/1A/47, Manicktola Main Road and the decree was drawn up accordingly. At the time of 7 describing, the cause title, the address of the parties to the suit have been recorded as 38/1A/H-58 (formerly known as 38/1A/47) Manicktola Main Road, Calcutta - 700054. Thus, I find that both the parties to the suit knew very well which premises was the suit premises and the parties fought legal battle accordingly for a long time. But, at the time of filing the amended plaint, the last figure of the premises number had been changed from 58 to 56. This is, I hold, nothing but a clerical or typographical mistake and for such mistake the defendants have not been prejudiced at all because they were quite aware what the suit premises was and where they were residing. In such a situation, it can well be presumed that the parties proceeded with the suit as if the suit premises is of 38/1A/H-58 (formerly known as 38/1A/47).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - P Mandal - Full Document

Rajmata Gayatri Devi vs District Judge Juipur City Jai on 12 November, 2008

However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case by the impugned order the learned trial court has itself come to the conclusion that the witness could not appear before the court and special arrangements were required to be made for recording the evidence of the witness as would be evident from the impugned order. The judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the respondent are therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case. The order passed by the learned trial court is to say the least contradictory in itself and suffers from an error of jurisdiction where the learned trial court after holding that though the witness is in capable of attending the court has not permitted the examination of the witness on commission and hence calls for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.E.B.I. Vs. Arihant Cotsyn Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2005 (13) SCC 498 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a High Court may exercise powers when the trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have. In the present case the court was satisfied that the witness was unable to appear before the court and in such circumstances to insist that the witness cannot come to the court premises and special arrangements be made rather than appointing a Commissioner for the purpose of recording the statement shows that it was a case when the learned trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by order 26 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Singh - Full Document
1