Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 40 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 105 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970
It is true that the District Judge also had returned the plaint. However, the order of the District Judge returning the plaint was correct as the Additional Subordinate had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The present suit was also filed in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge. Therefore, the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 2 of 1976 does not operate as res judicata in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad's case (2 supra).
Section 2 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Avtar Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh & Anr on 27 July, 1979
The judgment in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra) is no longer good law. I am, therefore, of the view that the judgment in O.S. No. 2 of 1976 does not operate as res judicata.
Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990
was-followed by the Supreme Court in Isarella Johnson v. M.A. Susai (AIR 1991 SC 1993) and the judgment in Avtar Singh's case, was held to be not good law. Counsel relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court: