Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.88 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 67 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
S.Chinnathai vs K.C.Chinnadurai on 23 July, 2009
8.4 It is also profitable to refer and rely upon decision of Madras
High Court in a case of S. Chinnathai vs. K.C. Chinnadura
(authored by Hon ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh his lordship then
was),2009 SCCOnlineMad 1166 wherein it has been held as
under,
"18. However, on a consideration of the above said
legal position, the following principles emerge for
consideration:
Sushil Kumar Sen vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1975
"[12] The processual law so dominates in certain
systems as to overpower substantive rights and
substantial justice. The humanist rule that
procedure should be the handmaid, not the
mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of
vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex
debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise
would be wholly inequitable.- justice is the goal of
jurisprudence - processual, as much as
substantive. (See Sushi/ Kumar Sen v. State of
Bihar, 1975 1 SCC 774).
Shreenath & Another vs Rajesh & Others on 13 April, 1998
(See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and
Ors., 1998 AIR(SC) 1827)
[14] Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a
servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice.
Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and
not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the
administration of justice."
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
9.3 It is also well settled law that High Court should
sparingly exercise its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India only in appropriate cases in order to
keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their
authority [Waryam Singh v/s Amarnath, 1954 AIR(SC)
215].Having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion and having
found that trial Court has committed procedural irregularity
which requires to be corrected by this Court while
exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India thereby, an interference requires in the impugned
order."
1