Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)State Of Mysore vs K. Manche Gowda on 22 August, 1963
In support of his arguments, the
counsel sought help from State of Mysore v. S. Manche Gowda,
1964 Supreme Court, Reports page 540 wherein it was held as
follows:
Narayanan Rajendran And Anr vs Lekshmy Sarojini And Ors on 12 February, 2009
RAJEEV THAKRAL During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant
2014.09.23 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2301 of 1990 (O&M) -9-
could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on
the record of the case in either of the impugned judgments. He also failed to
put into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to
take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below.
Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been
found involved in the present case, which is sine quo non for interference at
the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100
CPC, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naryanan Rajendran and
another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others; 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 286.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1