Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. [Entire Act]
Padam Sen And Another vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 September, 1960
It is not a panacea for all situations not otherwise expressly provided for. It is not a universal answer to all questions otherwise remaining unsolved. Nor is it to be invoked to short-circuit or circumvent the normal legal process in the matter of substantive rights. As held by the Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State of U.P. :
Section 94 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
R.T. Ramayya Servai vs R. Sama Ayyar And Ors. on 9 July, 1946
In this behalf, see also a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Ramayya Servai v. Sama Ayyar, A.I.R. 1947 Madras 92. The binding value of the order or its consequence if disobeyed is, therefore, nil. It is an order innocuous in nature and helpless in its effect. It constitutes a self-defeating exercise of inherent powers. Courts are not expected to pass such innocuous judicial orders.
Kamal Kumar Bose vs Sm. Ashalata Dey And Ors. on 31 January, 1977
6. Situation analogous hereto but in the context of an appeal, arose before a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Bose v. Ashalata Dev . Landlord's suit for possession was decreed in its entirety by the trial Court. In appeal against the same to the High Court, the said decree was modified into one for partial eviction. Against this appellate decree, the tenant preferred a letters patent appeal. In this latter appeal the landlord filed an application for an order directing the tenant to deposit arrears contending that such order could be passed under section 151 of the Code in the interest of justice. Rejecting this application and contention, the Division Bench observed :
1