Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Muncipal Corporation For Greater ... vs Lala Pancham Of Bombay & Others on 1 October, 1964
38. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court
has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness
to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be
limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such
evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision
does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the
appellate stage where even without such evidence it can
pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate
Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing
judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for
removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is
empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham &
Ors. (supra) ].
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
"36. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not
travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any
evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27
CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:19:55 :::HCHP
12
exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit
additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in
this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of
right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not
.
K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963
46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K.
Venkataramiah (Supra), while dealing with the same issue held:
Syed Abdul Khader vs Rami Reddy And Ors. on 29 November, 1978
K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 SC
1526; The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala
Pancham & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram & Anr. v.
Rameshwaralal & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 479; and Syed Abdul
of
Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 553).
State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957
39. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to
supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in
the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for
the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional
evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of
remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of
being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party
who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the
lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot
have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:19:55 :::HCHP
13
Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam
& Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101).
S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968
39. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to
supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in
the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for
the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional
evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of
remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of
being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party
who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the
lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot
have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:19:55 :::HCHP
13
Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam
& Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101).
State Of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar on 4 February, 2004
The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject
to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons
is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is
adversely affected must know why his application has been
of
rejected. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC
1794; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi,
AIR 2008 SC 2026; The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
1285; and Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group
rt
Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336).
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Singh Negi on 12 March, 2008
The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject
to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons
is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is
adversely affected must know why his application has been
of
rejected. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC
1794; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi,
AIR 2008 SC 2026; The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
1285; and Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group
rt
Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336).
Sec.& Curator Victoria Memorial Hall vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors on 9 March, 2010
The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject
to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons
is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is
adversely affected must know why his application has been
of
rejected. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, AIR 2004 SC
1794; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi,
AIR 2008 SC 2026; The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial
Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC
1285; and Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Cooperative Group
rt
Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336).