Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.26 seconds)
Mohd. Aijaz vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2018 cites

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 18 September, 2017

(21)   Obviously   the   conclusion   arrived   at   by   the learned Judge is against the very letter and spirit of Section 451 inasmuch as there is absolutely nothing therein   to   warrant   an   inference   that   rights   of   the concerned   parties   are   to   be   at   all   adjudicated.  As stated by me above, that stage is reached only after the conclusion   of   the   trial   as   envisaged   in   Section   452 which deals with the disposal, at the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody etc. At that stage the Court has to determine how the property is to be disposed of and it has, inter alia, to consider the competing claims of   the   rival   claimants   to   be   entitled   to   possession thereof. In other words,  the Court has to decide only the   right   to   possession   of   the   property   and   not   the ownership of the property. Hence, there is an obvious fallacy in the reasoning that an order under Section 451 purports to decide finally any of the rights of the parties and as such the aggrieved party has a right to challenge   the   same   in   revision.   On   a   parity   of reasoning   I   am   unable   to   subscribe   to   the   following observations   of   a   learned   Single   Judge   of   Andhra Pradesh in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra): "The order in question substantially affects the rights of the parties.   If   so,   it   cannot   be   considered   to   be   an interlocutory order."
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 29 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Anisa Begum vs Masoom Ali And Ors. on 8 November, 1985

(16) I have heard the rival contentions, the lengthy arguments and the grounds raised before me both on the aspect of  maintainability and merits.   However, the preliminary issue on the basis of which I am reluctant to go into the merits of the grounds, is the maintainability of the Revision Petitions as raised by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor.  At the very Outset I may observe that the revision petitions impugn the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court dismissing the applications for release of animals / vehicle carrying the animals on Superdari.  When a   similar   issue   came   up   for   consideration   before   the   Hon'ble   Delhi High Court in the year 1985 in the case of Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali & Ors.  (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Jain that the order dismissing the Superdari application did not decide the rights of the parties and was an interlocutory order against which no revision   petition   would   lie.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next