Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)
Heera Traders vs Smt. Kamla Jain on 25 August, 2021 cites

M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd on 10 December, 2004

17. The scope of review, as stated above, is very limited. This Court while passing the interim order dated 17.03.2020, has referred to the provisions of Section 13, law laid down in the cases of Bhagwandas Lakhsami v. Ms. Kokabai, 1951 Nag 186, Clifton Securities Ltd. v. Huntley, (1948) 2 All ER 283, Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 Shabbar Hussain v. Ram Dayal, 2011 (1) MPLJ 366, Niyas Ahmad Khan (supra), Super Max International Private Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 729 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008

19. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits. [See : J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West SA No.523/2014 Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1331 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has deliberately filed the application for modification belatedly. This Court has passed the well reasoned interim order by taking into account the law in the field. This Court has fixed very reasonable rate taking into account the prevalent market rate. Besides that, it is contended, a decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that different view could have been taken by the Court. Learned counsel for the SA No.523/2014 respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Gurbachan Singh v. Vimlabai, AIR 1993 MP 135; State of WB v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612; Super Max International P. Ltd. (supra) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389; Smt. Mankunwar Bai v. Sunderlal Jain, AIR 1978 MP 165; and Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 773 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Niyaz Ahmad Khan vs Mahmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr on 5 May, 2008

17. The scope of review, as stated above, is very limited. This Court while passing the interim order dated 17.03.2020, has referred to the provisions of Section 13, law laid down in the cases of Bhagwandas Lakhsami v. Ms. Kokabai, 1951 Nag 186, Clifton Securities Ltd. v. Huntley, (1948) 2 All ER 283, Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 Shabbar Hussain v. Ram Dayal, 2011 (1) MPLJ 366, Niyas Ahmad Khan (supra), Super Max International Private Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 44 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

J.R. Raghupathy, Etc vs State Of A.P. & Ors. Etc on 28 July, 1988

19. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits. [See : J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West SA No.523/2014 Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 278 - A P Sen - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S Super Max Internationalp.Ltd.& Ors on 27 August, 2009

17. The scope of review, as stated above, is very limited. This Court while passing the interim order dated 17.03.2020, has referred to the provisions of Section 13, law laid down in the cases of Bhagwandas Lakhsami v. Ms. Kokabai, 1951 Nag 186, Clifton Securities Ltd. v. Huntley, (1948) 2 All ER 283, Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705 Shabbar Hussain v. Ram Dayal, 2011 (1) MPLJ 366, Niyas Ahmad Khan (supra), Super Max International Private Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 116 - A Alam - Full Document

S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission on 6 December, 2007

19. The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits. [See : J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681) S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West SA No.523/2014 Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612 ]
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 435 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next