Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.23 seconds)Section 14 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 230A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Subhra Mukherjee & Anr. C vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 8 March, 2000
This was the view expressed by this Court in Subhra Mukherjee Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, (2000) 3 SCC 312 : AIR 2000 SC 1203.
Dharmabiri Rana vs Pramod Kumar Sharma (D) Th. Lrs. . on 5 October, 2017
(vii)AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5431 [Dharmabiri Rana Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (D) thr. Lrs. and another] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
A.C. Arulappan vs Smt. Ahalya Naik on 10 August, 2001
In this regard, a reference could be placed in another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C.Arulappan vs. Smt.Ahalya Naik, AIR 2001 SC 2783 wherein it has been held that merely because it is lawful to grant specific relief, the Court need not grant such an order, thereby allowing the plaintiff to take an unfair advantage over the defendants. In the case on hand also, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any such unfair advantage.
Sheth Maneklal Mansukhbhai vs Messrs. Hormusji Jamshedji ... on 21 March, 1950
In support of that proposition, learned counsel places reliance on Maneklal Vs. H.J.Ginwalia & Sons (AIR 1950 S.S. 1), Karthikeya Vs. Singaram (1956 (1) M.L.J. 77) and A.Gangadhara Rao Vs. G.Ganga Rao (AIR 1968 AP 291). In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider either of the propositions for the purpose of these appeals. Hence, we are not considering the authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.
T.S. Karthikeya Mudaliar vs Singaram Pillai And Anr. on 7 March, 1956
In support of that proposition, learned counsel places reliance on Maneklal Vs. H.J.Ginwalia & Sons (AIR 1950 S.S. 1), Karthikeya Vs. Singaram (1956 (1) M.L.J. 77) and A.Gangadhara Rao Vs. G.Ganga Rao (AIR 1968 AP 291). In our opinion, it is not necessary to consider either of the propositions for the purpose of these appeals. Hence, we are not considering the authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.
N.S. Arumugam vs Trishul Traders on 19 December, 2005
21. While appreciating the evidence adduced before it, the Court may encounter a situation to compare the disputed signatures in a document with the admitted signatures in some documents. In such circumstances, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, Courts have been given powers to do it. It cannot be said that courts have no such power. It is a statutory power (See N.S.Arumugam Vs. Trishul Traders and others (2006 (2) L.W.167) and K.S.Satyanarayana Vs. V.R.Narayana Rao (AIR 1999 SCC 2544).