Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr vs Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr on 5 February, 2008 cites

Gogula Gurumurthy & Ors vs Kurimeti Ayyappa on 14 March, 1974

Requirement for recording the finding of facts and the reasons disclosed from the facts is because the appellate court at the first instance has come to the conclusion that the lower court has omitted to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact material for the right decision of the suit on merits. It has to be noted that where a finding is called for on the basis of certain issues framed by the appellate court, the appeal is not disposed of either in whole or in part. Therefore the parties cannot be barred from arguing the whole appeal after the findings are received from the court of the first instance. This position was highlighted in Gogula Gurumurthy and Others v. Kurimeti Ayyappa (1975(4) SCC 458), where it was inter-alia observed in para 5 as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde on 21 February, 1978

20. Likewise, it was held that the licensing authorities were bound to renew licences of cab drivers if the prescribed procedural requirements had been complied with [R.v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1911) 2 QB 1131]. Similarly, local authorities were held bound to approve building plans if they were in conformity with bye-laws [R.V. Nescastle-upon- Tyne Corporation (1889) 60 LT 963]. Again, the court was required to pass a decree for possession in favour of a landlord, if the relevant grounds existed [Ganpat Ladha v. Shashikant (1978 (2) SCC 573).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 124 - M H Beg - Full Document

Alcock, Ashdown And Company Limited vs The Chief Revenue Authority Of Bombay on 7 June, 1923

In Alcock v. Chief Revenue Authority 50 IA 227 : AIR 1923 PC 138, the relevant statute provided that if in the course of any assessment a question arises as to the interpretation of the Act, the Chief Revenue Authority 'may' draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court. Holding the provision to be mandatory and following Julius, Lord Phillimore observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 24 September, 2007

"Where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised, and the Court will require it to be exercised." (See M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. 2007(10) SCR 245)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 51 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1