Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
K.S.B. Ali S/O. K.Z. Ali (In ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented ... on 26 October, 2007 cites

Mohd. Shaukat Hussain Khan vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 May, 1974

The learned Counsel for the appellant also referred to and relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Shoukat Khan v. State (1970) ILR 1151) wherein the vires of Section 38 E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) and the validity of delegation of powers to issue G.O.Ms.No.1081, Revenue, dated 30-10-1967 was challenged. We do not, therefore, find any relevancy of the said judgment to the present case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 27 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Sunder Dass vs Ram Prakash on 24 February, 1977

31. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash , a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Venkata Seshayya v. Virayya AIR 1958 AP.1, a Full Bench decision of Punjab High Court in Pritam Kaur v. State of Pepsu AIR 1963 PUNJAB 9, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V. Appannammanayuralu v. B. Sreeramulu in support of his contention that the validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings where the Court passing such decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction. In view of our finding that the Nazim Atiyat and the Hon'ble Revenue Minister have not granted property rights in respect of Kokapet lands, there is no necessity to apply the said legal principle to the present case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 127 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

V. Appannammanayuralu vs B. Sreeramulu on 7 September, 1977

31. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash , a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Venkata Seshayya v. Virayya AIR 1958 AP.1, a Full Bench decision of Punjab High Court in Pritam Kaur v. State of Pepsu AIR 1963 PUNJAB 9, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V. Appannammanayuralu v. B. Sreeramulu in support of his contention that the validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings where the Court passing such decree was lacking in inherent jurisdiction. In view of our finding that the Nazim Atiyat and the Hon'ble Revenue Minister have not granted property rights in respect of Kokapet lands, there is no necessity to apply the said legal principle to the present case on hand.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960

In Satyadhyan v. Smt. Doerajin Debi the Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. It is further held that even where Section 11 CPC does not apply, this principle has been applied by the Courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The above mentioned decisions are only illustrative of the settled principle of law based on the principle of res judicata and we do not think it necessary to refer to the abundance of authority on this aspect, as the law is too well settled in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 469 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1