Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Jagat Dhish Bhargava vs Shri Jawaharlal Bhargava And Ors. on 11 April, 1963
Jagat Dish v. Jawaharlal, , clearly states that a litigant deserves to be protected against the default committed or negligence shown by the court or its officers in the discharge of their duties.
Jang Singh vs Brijlal And Ors on 20 February, 1963
Jang Singh v. Brijlal, , states that no act of court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of court to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for the mistake.
K.S. Doraiswami Nadar (Died) And Ors. vs Vinayaka Ratnaswami Nadar And Ors. on 17 September, 1968
Doraisami Nadar v. Vinayaka Ratnasami Nadar, (1969) 82 Mad LW 188 cited by Thiru Parasaran is for the proposition that a court cannot dismiss the suit where it had passed a preliminary decree since the same will have the effect of nullifying the preliminary decree itself.
Mohanlal Goenka vs Benoy Krishna Mukherjeeand Others on 9 December, 1952
The decree was passed on 12-11-1968. Admittedly, 12-3-1969 will be beyond the 'three months' prescribed by the statute. The learned counsel submitted that the decree is binding on the parties and as such the same will operate as res judicate. He cited the decision in Mohanlal v. Benoy Kishna, , wherein the Supreme Court has held:
R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar vs R. Chandrasekhara Thevar on 29 July, 1947
10. Thiru Parasaran, the learned counsel for the appellant, cited the decision in Adaikappa v. Chandrasekhara, AIR 1948 PC 12 and S. R. Rajendar v. M. S. Govindier, 1961-2 Mad LJ 418 = (AIR 1962 Mad 16) (FB) for the proposition that an appeal will lie from the decree passed by the trial Court, even though the same is one passed under the provisions of the Act.
V. K. A. Ranganatha Konar vs The Tiruchirappalli Municipal ... on 18 December, 1964
11. Finally, Thiru Parasaran submitted that the suit filed by the appellant was for several relief, such as eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and future rent till delivery of possession and as such the dismissal of the suit in toto is not correct. He sought to distinguish the decision in Ranganatha v. Thiruchirapalli Municipal Council, by stating that there was no date mentioned for the deposit of the compensation amount in that case and as such the Supreme Court held that the failure of the landlord to deposit the compensation as per Section 4 will result in the dismissal of the suit filed by the landlord. According to the learned counsel, in the present case the decree has given his client time to deposit the amount of compensation uptill 12-3-1969 and as such the landlady had the time as per the decree till 12-3-1969 irrespective of the provision of Section 4.
Chinnammal vs Chidambara Kothanar (Since Alleged To ... on 12 March, 1936
In Chinnammal v. Chidambara Kothanar, 71 Mad LJ 506 = (AIR 1936 Mad 626) a Bench of this court accepted the principle that when under the same decree both the plaintiff's right and the defendant's liability are declared, it would be idle to drive the former to a separate proceeding to recover the costs.
State Of West Bengal vs Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee And Others on 27 November, 1962
7. State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar, lays down the proposition that a wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides. Distinction has to be made between an incorrect decision and a decision rendered without jurisdiction. Malkarjun Bin Shidaramappa Pasare, (1900) 27 Ind App 216 (PC) is to the effect that an executing court does not lose jurisdiction to sell because it serves notice on a person who does not represent the deceased judgment-debtor, and afterwards erroneously decides that he does; such decision is valid unless set aside in due course of law. From the above decisions, Thiru Parasaran submitted that the decree passed by the trial Court can be construed only as an erroneous decree and it cannot be a nullity. According to the learned counsel, if it is an erroneous decree, the remedy is only by setting it aside by means of an appeal or a review application; if that be the case, the courts below ought to have dismissed the application filed by the respondent, since the respondent is bound by the decree on record.