Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Section 103 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Navaneethammal vs Arjuna Chetty on 6 September, 1996
In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996 6 SCC 166) :
K.N.Nagarajappa vs H.Narasimha Reddy on 9 September, 2021
9. In Civil Appeal NO(s). 5033-5034 of 2009, titled K.N.
Nagarajappa & Ors. Vs. H. Narasimha Reddy, reported in Live
Law 2021 SC 433, decided on 09.09.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the interference by the High Courts with
findings of the lower Court or concurrent findings of fact, is subject
to two important caveats. The first is that, if the findings of fact are
palpably perverse or outrage the conscience of the court. The
other is where the findings of fact may call for examination and be
upset, in the limited circumstances spelt out in Section 103 CPC.
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Section 38 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
C.Doddanarayana Reddy(D) By Lrs. vs C.Jayarama Reddy (Dead) By Lr. on 14 February, 2020
In C. Doddanarayana Reddy
and Others Vs. Jayarama Reddy and Others, AIR 2020
Supreme Court 1912, it has been held that Interference with the
concurrent findings of the courts below by the High Courts under
Section 100 CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling
reasons. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:-
Section 39 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Board Of Wakf vs Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan on 10 August, 1999
In the judgment reported as Karnataka Board v.
Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan, it was held that
findings of the fact could not have been interfered within the
second appeal. This Court held as under:
Section 106 in The Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
1