Search Results Page
Search Results
11 - 20 of 61 (0.40 seconds)M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961
In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala [AIR 1961 SC
1669] Hidayatullah, J. (as His Lordship then was) made a distinction between a
"court" and a "tribunal" as is explained hereunder : (AIR p. 1680, para 32)
"32. ... These tribunals have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable
rights; they act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are
not part of the ordinary courts of civil judicature. They share the exercise of the
judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement some
administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of some
administrative law. They are very similar to courts, but are not courts. When the
Constitution speaks of „courts‟ in Article 136, 227 or 228 or in Articles 233 to 237
or in the Lists, it contemplates courts of civil judicature but not tribunals other
than such courts. This is the reason for using both the expressions in Articles 136
and 227.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 127 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Dhenkanal Municipal Council And ... vs A. Raja Rao And Others on 18 March, 1993
10. Again, in Secy. of State for India in Council v. Chelikani Rama Rao [Secy. of
State for India in Council v. Chelikani Rama Rao, (1915-16) 43 IA 192 : ILR (1916)
39 Mad 617 : 1916 SCC OnLine PC 42] , when dealing with the case under the
Madras Forest Act, Their Lordships observed as follows : (IA p. 197)
"... It was contended on behalf of the appellant that all further proceedings in
courts in India or by way of appeal were incompetent, these being excluded by
the terms of the statute just quoted. In Their Lordships' opinion this objection is
not well founded. Their view is that when proceedings of this character reach the
District Court that Court is appealed to as one of the ordinary courts of the
country, with regard to whose procedure, orders and decrees the ordinary rules
of the Civil Procedure Code apply."
Section 157 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964
1956 Cri LJ 326], Engg. Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. [AIR 1963 SC
874], Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma [AIR 1965 SC 1595], Rama
Rao v. Narayan [(1969) 1 SCC 167 : AIR 1969 SC 724], State of H.P. v. Mahendra
Pal [(1999) 4 SCC 43 : AIR 1999 SC 1786] , Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. State of
Bihar [(2000) 1 SCC 607 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 272], Indian National Congress
(I) v. Institute of Social Welfare [(2002) 5 SCC 685 : AIR 2002 SC 2158], K.
Shamrao v. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2003) 3 SCC 563] , Trans Mediterranean
Airways v. Universal Exports [(2011) 10 SCC 316 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 148], SCC p.
Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2006
Insofar as the other judgments cited by the respondent no.1 in support of
his submissions against the maintainability of the present appeal are
concerned, we notice that the judgment in the case of P.S. Sathappan
(supra) cited by the respondent was duly considered by Kamal Kumar
Dutta (supra) in paragraph 26 thereof and after noting several other
judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section
100A of the Code would bar a Letters Patent appeal against an order passed
by an Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court on an appeal under section
10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the CLB.
The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950
16. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Bharat Bank
Ltd. v. Employees [Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, 1950 SCC 470 : 1950 SCR 459]
and Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay,
(1953) 1 SCC 736 : 1953 SCR 730] where the test of a judicial tribunal as laid
down in a passage from Cooper v. Wilson [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309 at p.
340 (CA)] was adopted by this Court: (Cooper case [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB
309 at p. 340 (CA)], KB pp. 340-41)
"... A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or
more parties, and then involves four requisites: