Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A. Shanmugham vs Lakshmipathy Naidu And Anr. on 19 November, 1986
Therefore, the assumption made in Shanmugham v. Lakshmipathy Naidu 100 L.W. 99 and Karuppanna Gounder v. Velappa Naicker (1988)1 L. W. 18, that there is no amendment, is not correct. Similarly the view taken in those decisions that the Amending Act 104 of 1976 did not touch the provisions contained in Rule 90, Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure, is not correct.
K.V. Janakirama Iyer vs Radhakrishna Chettiar And Anr. on 17 February, 1987
We accordingly overrule the decision in V. Kannan v. Haji Abdul Rawoof Sahib 1982 T.L.N.J. 502 and Janakirama Iyer v. Radhakrishna Chettiar (1988)1 L.W. 6 and approve the view taken in Shanmugham v. Lakshmipathy Naidu 100 L. W. 99 and Karuppanna Gounder v. Velappa Naicker (1988)1 L.W. 18.
Ganpat Giri vs Iind Additional District Judge,Balia & ... on 7 January, 1986
5. The scope of Section 97(1) of the Amending Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ganpat Giri v. IInd Additional District Judge 99 L.W. 481. The Supreme Court was called upon to consider the effect of Section 97 of the Amending Act on any amendment made or any provisions inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by a State Legislature or a High Court prior to commencement of the Amending Act i.e., prior to February 1, 1977, in the different local areas in India, where the Code is in force if they be inconsistent with the provisions of the Code as amended by the Amending Act.
Dhanki Mahajan vs Rana Chandubha Wakhatsing & Ors on 11 April, 1968
The decisions of the Supreme Court on this point are many in number, but, however, we only refer to two of them, viz., Dhanki Mahajan v. Rama Chandubha and Guranditta v. Amar Dass A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1966.
1