Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Krishna Kumari & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 27 November, 1998
Section 114 would be of no help at all. It must be mentioned that in support of submission that it must be presumed that all formalities were complied with and the decree passed regularly reliance was also placed on the cases Krishna Kumar v. State of Haryana and The Commissioner of Income Tax A.P. v. M Chandra Sekhar . In our view these authorities are of no help in deciding the question under consideration. Even if we presume that all formalities were complied with and Decree was passed regularly it still would not lead to the conclusion that it was passed on merits.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra ... vs M:. Chandra Sekhar on 4 December, 1984
Section 114 would be of no help at all. It must be mentioned that in support of submission that it must be presumed that all formalities were complied with and the decree passed regularly reliance was also placed on the cases Krishna Kumar v. State of Haryana and The Commissioner of Income Tax A.P. v. M Chandra Sekhar . In our view these authorities are of no help in deciding the question under consideration. Even if we presume that all formalities were complied with and Decree was passed regularly it still would not lead to the conclusion that it was passed on merits.
M/S. International Woolen Mills vs M/S. Standard Wool (U.K.) Limited on 25 April, 2001
In my view, Mr. Narula cannot derive any advantage from International Woollen Mills's case (supra).
Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor vs Shri Varinder Kumar Kapoor on 6 April, 1981
23. I am appreciating the instant case, yet from another angle with regard to the welfare of the children which is of paramount consideration as observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar . In the aforesaid judgment, it was held as follows:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satya vs Teja Singh on 1 October, 1974
19. From the aforesaid facts, I draw a conclusion that judgment Annexure P/3 obtained by the petitioner is based upon fraud as the same is procured by trickery. It, therefore, falls within exception (e) of Section 13 of the Code and the petitioner cannot be allowed to avail of any benefit out of it. My view is fortified by a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Smt. Satya v. Teja Singh .
Om Pati vs Suraj Bhan Nandal And Anr. on 22 August, 1997
In support of his submissions, Mr. Kahlon relies upon two judgments of this Court rendered in Om Pati v. Suraj Bhan Nandal and Anr. and Sukhwinder Singh Parmar v. Satnam Singh Minhas 2001 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 437.
Mrs. Jacqueline Kapoor vs Surinder Pal Kapoor on 20 May, 1994
22. To be fair to Mr. Narula, I may say here that the other judgment rendered in Mrs. Jacqueline Kapoor case (supra) on which he is relying is entirely distinguishable on facts and does not lend any support to the case of the petitioner.