Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.48 seconds)
Arunachalam Muthu vs Nafan Bv on 30 November, 2012 cites

Dr. Manju Varma vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 17 November, 2004

33. Mr. Khambata further submitted that as already held in Manju Verma vs. State of U.P (supra), the power of the Chief Justice to transfer a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another is distinct from his power to frame a roster to determine the distribution of judicial work in the High Court. In that case, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had express power under Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 to transfer matters from cases in specified areas of U.P. to Allahabad (similar to the second proviso to Regulation 4 (3) of the CLB Regulations 1991). Mr. Khambata therefore submitted that the transfer of matters inter-jurisdictionally, apart from the Principal bench, not being part of the power to frame the roster has to be expressly conferred on the Chairman. In the absence of any express power, the Chairman cannot claim such a power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 35 - R Pal - Full Document

Dale And Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. And ... vs P.K. Prathapan And Others on 13 September, 2004

62. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dale & Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. & Another vs. P.K. Prathapan and Ors1, relied upon by the Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant in support of his contention that the impugned order is perverse and therefore the question of law arises, Mr. Khambata submitted that the contention is misconceived since the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself clarifies in paragraph 36 that perversity arises if a finding of fact "is based on no evidence". It is only then that the perversity of such finding itself becomes a question of law. This can hardly apply in the present case since the impugned order is based on material to support it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 167 - A Kumar - Full Document
1