Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.63 seconds)Section 116 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel vs Dabhi Ajithkumar Fulsinji And Others on 9 October, 1964
Therefore, the stand of respondent nos. 3 to 18 that even though they have
not filed an appeal, they can question correctness of the view adverse to
them, on the facts of the present case, needs to be accepted. It is to be
noted that in Ramanbhai's, case (supra) and Shri Thepfulo's, case (supra),
it was held by this Court that in "appropriate cases" this Court can permit
a non-appealing party to support the impugned judgment even upon grounds
which were negatived in that judgment. The Court has to consider whether in
the case before it the non-appealing party should be permitted to do so. On
the factual background highlighted above, we consider this to be case where
the respondent nos.
Vashist Narain Sharma vs Dev Chandra And Others on 20 May, 1954
"There could be no better way of supplying the
deficiency than by drawing upon the provisions of a
general law like the Code of Civil Procedure and
adopting such of those provisions as are suitable.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that normally a
party in whose favour the judgment appealed from
has been given will not be granted special leave to
appeal from it. Consideration of justice,
therefore, require that this Court shall in
appropriate cases permit a party placed in such a
position to support the judgment in his favour even
upon grounds which were negatived in that judgment.
We are therefore of the opinion that in Vashisht
Narayan Sharma case, too narrow a view was taken
regarding the powers of this Court.. ...".
Sri Baru Ram vs Shrimati Prasanni & Others on 30 September, 1958
26. The aforesaid decision was cited before another three-Judge Bench in
the case of Baru Ram v. Prasanni, AIR (1959) SC 93 where it was not
dissented from.
J K Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 March, 1998
In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central
Excise, [1998] 3 SCC 540 it was noted as follows:
Management Of Northern ... vs Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, ... on 27 January, 1967
(Underlined for emphasis)
The position was re-iterated in Management of Northern Railway Co-operative
Society Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Anr., [1967] 2
SCR 476.
Thepfulo Nakhro Angami vs Shrimati Ravalu Alias Reno M. Shaiza on 21 January, 1971
"3. Mr. S.V. Gupte learned counsel for the appellant tried to
distinguish that decision on two grounds, viz. (1) that the
decision in question was rendered in an appeal to this Court by
Special Leave and as such the jurisdiction of this Court was much
wider than that conferred on this Court by Section 116 (A) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 and (2) that the scope of an
appeal under Section 116(A) before its amendment in 1966 was
different than from its scope at present. We are unable to accept
either of these two contentions. In the above decisions, it was
ruled that this Court has power to decide all the points arising
from the judgment appealed against and even in the absence of an
expressed provision like Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, this Court can devise appropriate procedure to be
adopted at the hearing and there could be no better way of
supplying the deficiency than by drawing upon the provisions of a
general law like the Code of Civil Procedure and adopting such of
those provisions as are suitable. The decision of the Court did not
rest either on the ground that the appeal before it was brought by
special leave of this Court or on the interpretation of Section
116(A) as it then stood. The reasons behind the rule laid down by
this Court are found at page 725 of the report. Therein it is
observed:
1