Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)The Agricultural Produce Marketing ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2022
In a very latest judgment titled as Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, Civil
Appeal No. 1347-1374 of 2002, decided on 22.03.2022 while relying
upon the judgment of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a duty is cast upon the Court to decide all
the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than
adopting a short cut approach and pronounce the judgment on one
issue only. The same would amount to increasing the burden of
RCA No. 243/2017 Page No. 17 of 21
Appellate Court and the Appellate Court would have no other option
but to remand back the matter for fresh decision. The relevant
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced herein as
under:-
The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019
In a very latest judgment titled as Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, Civil
Appeal No. 1347-1374 of 2002, decided on 22.03.2022 while relying
upon the judgment of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a duty is cast upon the Court to decide all
the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than
adopting a short cut approach and pronounce the judgment on one
issue only. The same would amount to increasing the burden of
RCA No. 243/2017 Page No. 17 of 21
Appellate Court and the Appellate Court would have no other option
but to remand back the matter for fresh decision. The relevant
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced herein as
under:-
Section 2 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Chetan Textiles, Bombay vs Jethabhai Hirji & Co. And Ors. on 6 July, 1984
In the judgment of Chetan Textiles, Bombay Vs.
Jethabhai Hirji & Co. & Others, AIR 1985 Guj. 95 it was held by
the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that it is not open to the Court after
framing of all the issues and recording evidence on all the issues to
give a finding only on the one issue and refrain from giving findings
on other issues. It was further held that the Trial Court has obviously
adopted a course which was not permissible under the law in view of
the mandate given under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. The relevant
observations are reproduced herein under:-
Kusumkant T. Nagda vs Mariam Bi Wd/O Ebrahim on 5 October, 2004
Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice made
a reference to the Division Bench and vide order dated 15.12.2006, the
Hon'ble Division Bench held that view taken by the single judge in
the case of Kusum Kant T. Nagda (Supra) was correct.
1