Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 211 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 231 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
12. As early as 1955, in the opinion reported as Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, the Supreme Court opined that:
Section 234 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Shreenath & Another vs Rajesh & Others on 13 April, 1998
In the report published as Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors., it was held that procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; that procedural law is always subservient and is in aid to justice. An interpretation which alludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed.
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, ... vs M/S. Swaraj Developers & Ors on 17 April, 2003
In Shiv Shakti's case (supra), Supreme Court has held that only such orders which result in the final disposal of the suit are amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, I hold that the revision petitions are maintainable.
Sushil Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 18 January, 2005
In the report published as Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court cautioned that too much or over emphasis to procedure should be avoided because the humanist rule is that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress of justice. This compels the vesting of a residuary power in Judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. It was opined that justice is the goal of jurisprudence processual as much as substantive.
1