Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.48 seconds)Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand on 6 February, 1957
Whether it is likely to produce, in the minds, of the
litigant or the public at large a reasonable doubt
617
about the fairness of the administration of justice. (Manak
Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand) (1).
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Police Act, 1949
Assistant Collector Of Customs For ... vs Soorajmull Nagarmull And Anr. on 19 February, 1952
To the same effect are the following
observations of Harries C.J. in Assistant Collector of
Customs v. Soorajmull Nagarmul (2) at page 470:
Saiyid Jowad Hussain vs Gendan Singh on 15 June, 1926
There appear to be two answers to the foregoing contention.
As we have already observed an order of dismissal passed on
a departmental enquiry by an officer in the department and
an order passed by another officer next higher in rank dis-
missing an appeal therefrom and an order rejecting an
application for revision by the head of the department can
hardly be equated with any propriety with decrees made in a
civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure by the court of
first instance and the decree dismissing the appeal there-
from by an appeal court and the order dismissing the
revision petition by a yet higher court, as has been sought
to be done by the High Court in this case, because the
departmental tribunals of the first instance or on appeal or
revision are not regular courts manned by persons trained in
law although they may have the trappings of the courts of
law. The danger of so doing is evident from what has
happened in the very case now before us. In the next place,
while it is true that a decree of a court of first instance
may be said to merge in the decree passed on appeal there-
from or even in the order passed in revision, it does so
only for certain purposes, namely, for the purposes of
computing the period of limitation for execution of the
decree as in Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei(1), or for computing
the period of limitation for an application for final decree
in a mortgage suit as in Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh (2).
Hukumchand Boid vs Pirthichand Lal Chowdhury on 3 December, 1918
But, as pointed out by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in delivering
the judgment of the Privy Council in Juscurn Boid v.
Prithichand Lal (3), whatever be the theory under other
systems of law, under the Indian Law and' procedure an
original decree is not suspended by the presentation of an
appeal nor is its operation interrupted where the
(1) (1914) L.R. 41 I.A. 104.
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja vs State Of Bombay on 20 May, 1952
In Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay
(1) my Lord the Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of
the Court, pointed out at page 734 that though the
Legislature had power to take away normal rights of, among
other things, transfer and revision in a criminal case
before the Constitution, that kind of legislation became bad
after the Constitution, even if it bad been enacted before,
because of the new rights conferred by Art. 14.
Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Madurai & Ors vs Sri A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & Ors on 21 October, 1954
The
principle was also applied in Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
Sri A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (2), Dhirendra Kumar Mandal v.
The Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs to the
Government of West Bengal(3), Habeeb Mohamed v. The State of
Hyderabad(4) Syed Casim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad (5)
and Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (6).
These cases are not exactly in point but the principle is
there and it is that principle that I invoke here.
On the merits I am clear that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Dhirendra Kumar Mandal vs The Superintendent Andremembrancer Of ... on 20 April, 1954
The
principle was also applied in Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v.
Sri A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (2), Dhirendra Kumar Mandal v.
The Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs to the
Government of West Bengal(3), Habeeb Mohamed v. The State of
Hyderabad(4) Syed Casim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad (5)
and Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (6).
These cases are not exactly in point but the principle is
there and it is that principle that I invoke here.
On the merits I am clear that the appeal should be
dismissed.