Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)

V. Raja Kumari vs P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr on 2 November, 2004

9.1 The Sessions Court without discussing the merits of the case has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, only on the ground that the power of attorney is not proved. The Sessions Court has also erred in holding that there was no valid demand notice and the notice at Ex.P14 is not signed by the complainant, but it is signed by her husband. It has 6 also erred in holding that the demand notice is not served on the accused, though it is duly sent to the address of the accused and it is received by one of his subordinates and it bares seal of accused. The findings of the Sessions Court is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in V.Raja Kumari Vs. P.Subbarama Naidu & Anr. (V.Raja Kumari)1 and K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another (K.Bhaskaran)2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 333 - A Pasayat - Full Document

K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999

9.1 The Sessions Court without discussing the merits of the case has erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, only on the ground that the power of attorney is not proved. The Sessions Court has also erred in holding that there was no valid demand notice and the notice at Ex.P14 is not signed by the complainant, but it is signed by her husband. It has 6 also erred in holding that the demand notice is not served on the accused, though it is duly sent to the address of the accused and it is received by one of his subordinates and it bares seal of accused. The findings of the Sessions Court is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in V.Raja Kumari Vs. P.Subbarama Naidu & Anr. (V.Raja Kumari)1 and K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Another (K.Bhaskaran)2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3240 - Full Document
1