Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.55 seconds)

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram, SCC p. 758, para 5.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001

4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram, SCC p. 758, para 5.)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 383 - B Kumar - Full Document

Gulam Abbas vs Haji Kayyum Ali & Ors on 18 September, 1972

86. As already pointed out, Dastbardari (nLrcjnkjh) Ex. D.2, was without any consideration amount. Even payment of Rs. 10,000/- as evident from receipt Ex. D.1, was not in lieu of relinquishment, but it was paid because Habib Shah was intending to purchase a Tempo. The Supreme Court in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 27-11-2025 08:36:13 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:30713 60 F.A. No.5 of 1976 case of Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyum Ali, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 1 has held as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 32 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next