Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Saroj Khemka vs Indu Sharma And Anr. on 1 March, 1999
Mr. Mittal had pointed out the observations made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Saroj Khemka (supra), wherein similar arguments have been raised. After noticing the arguments, Justice Vijender Jain observed as follows: -
H.C. Goenka And Another vs Brig. (Retired) S.P. Kochar & Another on 11 August, 1999
In support of the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel has relied on another decision of Delhi High Court in the case of H.C. Goenka v. Brig S.P. Kochar, 12 2000(1) R.L.R., 604.
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
This view of mine finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, 1977(1) Rent Law Reporter 224. In paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works And Ors. vs Rangaswamy Chettiar on 26 March, 1980
12. Referring to the nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the limitations inherent in the concept of a 'Revision', this Court in Ranalakshmi Dyeing Works and Ors. v. Rangaswamy Chetiar, 1981(2) R.C.R. 559; 1980(2) R.C.J, 165 (at 167) observed: