Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.04 seconds)
Mallu Venkatramana Reddy And 7 Others vs Gandluri Govinda Reddy And Another on 21 January, 2013
cites
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Boodireddy Chandraiah And Ors vs Arigela Laxmi And Anr on 17 September, 2007
He also placed reliance on Boodireddy Chandraiah V.
Arigela Laxmi3, wherein the Supreme Court observed on scope of Section 100 C.P.C
to the following effect:
Ashok Kapil vs Sana Ullah [Dead] And Others on 25 September, 1996
In Ashok Kapil V. Sana Ullah5 the Supreme Court observed that the maxim
Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (No man can take advantage
of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity and that in the normal
course a party cannot secure assistance of a Court of law for enjoying fruit of
his own wrong.
Harikrishna Lal vs Babu Lal Marandi on 30 October, 2003
In Harikrishna Lal V. Babu Lal Marandi6 the Supreme Court observed:
Eureka Firbes Limited vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 3 May, 2010
In Eureka Forbes Limited V. Allahabad Bank7 the Supreme Court reiterated
as follows:
S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors on 10 August, 2000
7) It is contended by senior counsel for the appellants that Section 92
Proviso (4) of the Evidence Act excludes evidence of oral agreement altering
terms of a registered sale deed like Ex.A-10. The Supreme Court in S.Saktivel
Vs. M.Venugopal Pillai1 observed as follows:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
P. Chandrasekharan & Others vs S. Kanakarajan & Others on 27 April, 2007
9) Senior counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on
P.Chandrasekharan V. S.Kanakarajan2 wherein the Supreme Court on scope of
Section 100 C.P.C observed that when the Courts below misread and misinterpreted
a document of title read with other documents and the plan for the
identification of the suit lands whereupon the plaintiffs relied upon, a
substantial question of law arise for determination of the High Court in between
the parties in suit.
1