Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State
[Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206
while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt,
true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant
material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality
incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm
in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said
judgment reads as under:
Gaya Din (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs Hanuman Prasad (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. on 27 November, 2000
In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1
SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression
"perverse" means that the findings of the subordinate
authority are not supported by the evidence brought on
record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of
procedural irregularity.
Parry'S (Calcutta) Employee'S Union vs Parry And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 23 December, 1964
In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co.
Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse
finding" means a finding which is not only against the weight
of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.
M/S. Triveni Rubber And Plastics vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 30 March, 1993
In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC
665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not
a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities
are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no
reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.
M.S. Narayanagouda vs Girijamma And Anr. on 30 August, 1976
In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant
58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious
violation of pleading and law is a perverse order.
Devina Jula Godfrey vs Ian Michael Godfrey on 10 June, 2021
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined
"perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted
from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right,
proper, correct, etc.