Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.18 seconds)Gaya Prasad vs Shri Pradeep Srivastava on 7 February, 2001
16. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta placed reliance upon some of the judg ments.
Smt. Laxmi & Anandi & Others vs Shri C. Setharama Nagarkar & Ors on 18 September, 1995
14. I have considered the above submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of that case which are quite distinct from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this judgment is not applicable in the present case, because the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on account of subsequent events which took place during the pendency of the first appeal. In the fact situation, the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that in the meantime the plaintiff's four sons have become major and except two sons Shambhu Dayal and Prakash Chandra the remaining two sons are sitting idle and thus the requirement of the plaintiff for the suit shop does not come to an end. These were also the subsequent events and in case the Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of eviction only on the basis of the subsequent events, then in that case subsequent events which took place in landlord's favour should have also been taken into consideration but the First Appellate Court entirely failed to take these facts into consideration.
Sheel Chand vs Prakash Chand on 1 September, 1998
In Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand, ((1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 683), it has been held that second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. can be heard only on substantial question of law and such substantial question of law must be formulated by the High Court.
Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade vs Maroti Bhaurao Marnor on 5 February, 1999
Similar view was taken in Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, ((1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471), Mohd. Amirullah Khan and Ors. v. Mohd. Hakumullah Khan and Ors., ((1999) 3 SCC 733), Arumugham (dead) by LRs.
Mohd. Amirullah Khan & Ors. vs Mohd. Hakumullah Khan & Ors. on 23 March, 1999
Similar view was taken in Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, ((1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471), Mohd. Amirullah Khan and Ors. v. Mohd. Hakumullah Khan and Ors., ((1999) 3 SCC 733), Arumugham (dead) by LRs.
Arumugham (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors vs Sundarambal And Anr on 29 April, 1999
and Ors. v. Sundarambal And Anr., ((1999) 4 SCC 350), Hari Singh v. Kanjiaiya Lal, ((1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 288), Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal and Ors., ((2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 41), and Rajendra Kumar v. Jamna Das Kotewala, (1990 U.J. (S.C.) 582). It is settled position of law that the High Court can interfere In second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. only when a substantial question of law arises. In the instant case as state here in above the First Appellate Court first affirmed the findings of the Trial Court on the questions of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff as well as comparative hardship but set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the subsequent events. As discussed here in above, the decision of the First Appellate Court on the subsequent events cannot be justified in any way.
Hari Singh vs Kanhaiya Lal on 7 September, 1999
and Ors. v. Sundarambal And Anr., ((1999) 4 SCC 350), Hari Singh v. Kanjiaiya Lal, ((1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 288), Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal and Ors., ((2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 41), and Rajendra Kumar v. Jamna Das Kotewala, (1990 U.J. (S.C.) 582). It is settled position of law that the High Court can interfere In second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. only when a substantial question of law arises. In the instant case as state here in above the First Appellate Court first affirmed the findings of the Trial Court on the questions of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff as well as comparative hardship but set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the subsequent events. As discussed here in above, the decision of the First Appellate Court on the subsequent events cannot be justified in any way.
Har Narain Daga vs Heeralal & Others on 1 December, 2000
and Ors. v. Sundarambal And Anr., ((1999) 4 SCC 350), Hari Singh v. Kanjiaiya Lal, ((1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 288), Har Narain Daga v. Heeralal and Ors., ((2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 41), and Rajendra Kumar v. Jamna Das Kotewala, (1990 U.J. (S.C.) 582). It is settled position of law that the High Court can interfere In second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. only when a substantial question of law arises. In the instant case as state here in above the First Appellate Court first affirmed the findings of the Trial Court on the questions of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff as well as comparative hardship but set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court only on the subsequent events. As discussed here in above, the decision of the First Appellate Court on the subsequent events cannot be justified in any way.
Mattulal vs Radhe Lal on 23 April, 1974
In Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, (A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1596), relied upon by learned Senior Counsel Sh. Mehta it has been held that the finding on an appreciation of evidence that the landlord does not bonafide require the premises in question is a finding of fact and not a finding of mixed law and fact and it cannot be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal.