Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.27 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971
The Division Bench did not agree with the finding recorded by the Civil Judge on the ground that it was clearly unsustainable. In view of that it held that the decision of the Civil Judge was vitiated by material illegality. I am unable to make out any principle or principles having been laid down in this decision.
Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed vs Haji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai on 22 October, 1963
22. Sri Tukaram S. Pai, learned Advocate for the respondent-plaintiff argued that even when a subordinate Court had, on a question of law, taken a view quite contrary to what had been laid down by the Supreme Court and thereby granted relief of possession, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with such an order even when the party who had obtained relief at the hands of the subordinate Court was, in law, not entitled to that relief. He, in this connection, further pointed out that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is to be law of the land and binding on all the Courts in view of Art 141 of the Constitution. It has to be said that the argument of Sri Pai has all the force in it in view of this decision.
Section 17 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Ratilal Balabhai Nazar vs Ranchhodbhai Shankarbhai Patel And ... on 23 August, 1965
In the said case the District Court had put a wrong construction on certain decree. The High Court interfered with the order under S. 115, CPC. The Supreme Court held that *the High Court had no jurisdiction and reversed the order of the High Court. This decision was rendered on 26-4-1965. Next is the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on 23-8-1965 in the case of Ratilal v. Ranchhodbhai (by, a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges). The earlier decisions in 76 Ind App 131: (AIR 1949 PC 239), 44 Ind App 261: (AIR 1917 PC 71), , and have been referred. In that case, the Principal Judge of a City Civil Court had in appeal held that upon a construction placed by him on the provisions of S. 12, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, that the case fell under S. 120) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto and not under either cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub-s- (3) of S. 12. Upon that view the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court decreed the relief for possession in favour of the respondent before the Supreme Court.
Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 26 February, 1979
10. There is no force in the second point raised by the learned counsel for the tenant. It is true that the jurisdiction of a High Court under provisions similar to S. 17 of the Act is limited, but we cannot say that the High Court was wrong in holding that the Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity in not following the decision of the Mysore High Court when that decision had been rendered in a case arising from an earlier order of the same Additional District Judge. It may be that this decision was not pointed out to the Additional District Judge but we cannot in exercise of our jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution, say that the High Court should not have set aside the order of the Additional District Judge on this ground." The appeal was dismissed. This decision and the decision in do not appear to see eye to eye with each other. The question would be as to which view would be, binding on this Court. A Full Bench of this Court has, in the case of Govindanaik v. West Patent Press Co. dealt with this question and held as follows: