Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
N.A. Suyambulingam vs V.K. Swaminathan And Anr. on 27 January, 1987
(1) (2003)2 M.L.J. 186 (S.C) (B.JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTY vs. A.K. PARTHASARATHI
AND OTHERS)
(2) AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 42 (PRAKASH CHANDER MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER vs.
SMT.JANKI MANCHANDA)
(3) 1988-1- L.W.368 (M.A.SUYAMBULINGAM vs. V.K.SWAMINATHAN AND ANOTHER)
(4) 1992-2-L.W. 536 (KAMAKSHI vs. JUGRAJ JAIN)
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
18. Further more, in its recent judgment delivered in SUKANYA
HOLDINGS (P) LTD. vs. JAYESH H.PANDYA AND ANOTHER reported in (2003) 5 SCC
531, the Honourable Apex Court has held:
Section 8 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Arumugha Gounder And Ors. vs Tmt. Palaniammal And Ors. on 7 November, 2000
In the first judgment cited on the part of the petitioner,
since the defendants 1 to 3 were called absent, the trial Court had decreed
the suit as prayed for and thereafter the defendants had filed an Application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC before the trial Court to set aside the said
judgment and decree and on the said petition having been allowed by the trial
Court, a revision had been filed before the High Court by the plaintiff and
the same also having been dismissed, he had filed the Civil Appeal before the
Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court giving expression to Order
XVII Rules 2 and 3 of C.P.C. and extracting the said Rules, would remark that
the case was having imprints of an ex-parte adjudication and not of a decision
on merits and there was not even any indication as to what evidence was
evaluated and/or whether the merits were tested and had ultimately decided in
the following terms: