Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.39 seconds)
Jayeshbhai Chhotalal Gatecha vs Bhavsinhbhai Noaghanbhai Barad on 2 September, 2022 cites

Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001

The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide : Santosh Page 14 of 29 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:55:06 IST 2022 C/SA/120/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2022 Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 383 - B Kumar - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide : Santosh Page 14 of 29 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 00:55:06 IST 2022 C/SA/120/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2022 Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

G. Amalorpavam & Ors vs R.C. Diocese Of Madurai & Ors on 6 March, 2006

[4.3] It also cannot be disputed that while deciding and disposing of the First Appeal under Order 41 read with Section 96 of the CPC, the learned Appellate Court is required to frame the points for determination as envisaged under Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. However, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Amalorpavam and Ors. vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai and Ors. reported in (2006)3 SCC 224, if from the judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court it is found that the learned Appellate Court has applied mind and decided all the issues and has given his own findings solely on the ground that the points for determination are not framed, the judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is not vitiated. In para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 235 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next