Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.35 seconds)

Helper Girdhiarbhai vs Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri And ... on 6 May, 1987

"5. The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and after referring to a catena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdiction of the courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on question of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case is decided according to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had wider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision under challenge before it is according to law. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction?
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 136 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty vs Desu Rangiah And Ors. on 15 February, 1952

We may mention that in Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty v. Desu Rangiah, AIR 1954 Mad. 182, Subba Rao, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, held that there cannot be a subletting, unless the lessee parted with legal possession. The mere fact that another is allowed to use the premises while the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub-lease."
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next