Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972
But Section 30-A creates no such bar against the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the scope of Section 115 CPC is limited as laid down in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379 holding that:
Smt. Sobhabati vs Lakshmi Chand And Ors. on 1 May, 1984
2. Smt. Sobhabati v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1984 Orissa 171
N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar vs The Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 14 January, 1949
"In N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, AIR 1949 PC 156 the Judicial Committee said that Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters, (a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some previsions of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters, if has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law."
1