Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Renuka Devi vs D. Manohara on 18 November, 1997
He also relies on the decision RENUKA DEVI V. D.MANOHARAN, 1997 (III) CTC 567, wherein this Court has held that ' person coming to Court with false case with aid of false and fraudulent document should be thrown out at threshold, etc., and that the Court has power to grant relief and should not close its eyes on technicalities.'
Achutananda Baidya vs Prafullya Kumar Gayen And Ors on 8 April, 1997
13. Yet another decision ACHUTANANDA BAIDYA V. PRAFULLYA KUMAR GAYEN AND ORS., 1997(II) CTC 333 at pg.336 is relied on the side of the revision petitioners wherein the Honourable High Court has held that ' the High Court can interfere with finding of the fact of Subordinate Court if such finding have been reached without any evidence or on manifest misreading of evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or of its conclusions are perverse.'
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
14. Added further, he also relies on the decision SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS, 2003 AIR SCW 3872, whereby and whereunder the Honourable High Court has held that 'the Interlocutory orders passed by the Courts Subordinate to High Court are open to challenge in and continue to be subject to certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of High Court.'
Sebi vs Arihant Exim Scrip Pvt. Ltd. And Doe ... on 19 January, 2005
Further, he cites the decision SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. AND OTHERS, (2005) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 498 at pg.499, wherein the Honourable High Court has held that 'the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.227 and 226 can always be exercised where the Subordinate Court is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and for the purpose of keeping the Subordinate Court within bounds when the Subordinate Court has assumed jurisdiction which it did not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have, etc.,' Also on the side of the revision petitioners, the decision ALAGI ALAMELU ACHI VS. PONNAIYA MUDALIYAR, AIR 1962 MADRAS 149 is relied on to the effect that 'person in wrongful possession is entitled to injunction against the lawful owner.'
Alagi Alamelu Achi vs Ponniah Mudaliar on 10 February, 1961
Further, he cites the decision SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. ARIHANT COTSYN LTD. AND OTHERS, (2005) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 498 at pg.499, wherein the Honourable High Court has held that 'the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts.227 and 226 can always be exercised where the Subordinate Court is found to have acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and for the purpose of keeping the Subordinate Court within bounds when the Subordinate Court has assumed jurisdiction which it did not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have, etc.,' Also on the side of the revision petitioners, the decision ALAGI ALAMELU ACHI VS. PONNAIYA MUDALIYAR, AIR 1962 MADRAS 149 is relied on to the effect that 'person in wrongful possession is entitled to injunction against the lawful owner.'
Punjab National Bank vs O.C. Krishnan And Ors on 13 August, 2001
17. On the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, the decision PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK V. O.C.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS, (2001) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES pg.569 is relied on to the effect that 'Even though the provision under an Article cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising within jurisdiction in the said constitutional provisions.'
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
27. Added further, this Court points out the decision 'DORAB CAWASJI WARDEN V. COOMI SORAB WARDEN, (1990) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 117, at page No.118 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that ' the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non contested status which proceeded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining.