Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.89 seconds)
Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023 cites

State Of M.P. & Anr vs Anshuman Shukla on 12 May, 2008

39. The Full Bench of our Court in Avtar Narain Behal was again called upon to answer the question of maintainability of an LPA in the context of an order originally passed by the District Judge in proceedings instituted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the appeal which was decided by a Single Judge of the Court. We similarly note that the decision in State of M.P. & Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla27, rested on the provisions of the M.P. Madhyashtam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and which in terms of 27 (2008) 7 SCC 487 LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 72 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 Section 24 of the said enactment, by virtue of a deeming provision clothed the Tribunal with the status of a civil court. Insofar, as the judgment of the High Court of Madras in W.N. Alala Sundaram is concerned, the proceeding arose from the orders passed on a suit under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which came to be decreed by the Commissioner. Those proceedings had been laid in terms of Section 70 of the aforenoted enactment before the civil court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 91 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sakuru vs Tanaji on 10 July, 1985

The respondents, therefore, were well aware that the appellant had filed an application for registration. One of the questions which was raised before Respondent 3 as also before the High Court was as to whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the rectification proceedings. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Sakura v. Tanaji [(1985) 3 SCC 590: AIR 1985 SC 1279], evidently the same has to be rejected as the Registrar is not a court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 125 - V B Eradi - Full Document
1