Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing Gundavarapu Seshamma vs Kornepati Venkata Narasimha Rao And ... on 16 November, 1939

Chilukuri Tripura Sundaramma vs Chilukuri Venkateswarlu Alias ... on 4 March, 1949

It may be that if the principles stated in Seshamma v. Narasimha Rao (1940) 1 M.L.J. 400 : I.L.R. 1940 Mad had been considered to be of such compelling authority in 1915 when Appayya Shetty v. Mahammade Beari (1915) 29 M.L.J. 381 : I.L.R. 39 Mad. 834 was decided, the learned Judges might have adopted a course which Mr. Somasundaram states is the only proper method. But from the fact that those Judges did not think it necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench, it does not follow that I should now adopt a course which, according to the appellant's counsel, these learned Judges should have adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S.Alim Basha vs Deputy Registrar/Managing Director on 4 July, 2019

In England the practice is, as noticed in the judgment in Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao [Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao, 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 367 : ILR 1940 Mad 454] that the decision of a Court of Appeal is considered as a general rule to be binding on it. There are exceptions to it, and one of them is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 22, Para 1687, pp. 799-800:
Madras High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.Lalitha vs Deputy Registrar/Managing Director on 4 July, 2019

In England the practice is, as noticed in the judgment in Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao [Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao, 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 367 : ILR 1940 Mad 454] that the decision of a Court of Appeal is considered as a general rule to be binding on it. There are exceptions to it, and one of them is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 22, Para 1687, pp. 799-800:
Madras High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Chirala Buchi Reddi vs Satti Savitramma on 17 August, 1960

"These observations in our opinion, overlook the fundamental principles bearing on the law of precedents namely that a Full Bench decision must be regarded as good law and binding on all single and division benches, until a fuller bench had decided contrary to the decision of the Full Bench." After referring to the observations of Leach, C.J. in Seshamma v. Narasimha Rao, 1940-1 Mad.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K. Peramanayakam Pillai vs S.T. Sivaraman And Anr. on 22 March, 1951

As Leach C. J. himself remarks in 'Seshamma v. Narasimha Rao', ILR (1940) Mad 454 at p. 475 "If a Division Bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of another Division Bench, the only right and proper course to adopt is to refer the matter to a Full Bench for which the rules of this Court provide. If this course is not adopted, the Courts subordinate to the High Court are left without guidance."
Madras High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Philip Jeyasingh vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 22 January, 1992

5. Reiterating the ruling in Mahadeolal Komadia v. The Administrator General of West Bengal , the Supreme Court in JaisriSahu v. Rajdewan Dubey and Ors. , observed as follows after quoting with approval a passage in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Seshamma's case (1940)1 M.L.J. 400: I.L.R. 1940 Mad. 454 : 51 L.W. 408 : A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 356 (F.B.):
Madras High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

M/S Geo Miller And Co Pvt Ltd vs Up Jal Nigam And 2 Others on 17 May, 2024

In England the practice is, as noticed in the judgment in Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao [Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao, 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 367 : ILR 1940 Mad 454] that the decision of a Court of Appeal is considered as a general rule to be binding on it. There are exceptions to it, and one of them is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, '1687. ... the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if given per incuriam. A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of a coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, or when it has acted in ignorance of a decision of the House of Lords. In the former case it must decide which decision to follow, and in the latter it is bound by the decision of the House of Lords.'
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohmood Hussain vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 July, 2023

In England the practice is, as noticed in the judgment in Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao [Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao, 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 367 : ILR 1940 Mad 454] that the decision of a Court of Appeal is considered as a general rule to be binding on it. There are exceptions to it, and one of them is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 22, Para 1687, pp. 799-800:
Madras High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Balaji vs Principal Secretary To Government on 22 February, 2019

In England the practice is, as noticed in the judgment in Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao [Gundavarupu Seshamma v. Kornepati Venkata Narasimharao, 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 367 : ILR 1940 Mad 454] that the decision of a Court of Appeal is considered as a general rule to be binding on it. There are exceptions to it, and one of them is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 22, Para 1687, pp. 799-800:
Madras High Court Cites 165 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next