Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.37 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994
The impugned order which is bereft of reason and laconic cannot stand a moments scrutiny as ruled in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das, 1994 (4) SCC 225. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso in Rule 3 is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise. As observed by the Honble Supreme Court, proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Inasmuch as this condition has been violated by the learned Subordinate Judge, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop In ... vs D. Sahayadoss And 2 Ors. on 8 February, 2002
(vi) Dr.Devasayham,V.Rt Rev Vs. D.Sahayadoss (reported in 2002 (1) CTC 458) wherein this Court held thus :
State Of U.P. vs District Judge, Unnao And Ors. on 6 December, 1983
It is relevant to refer a decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. District Judge, Unnao, AIR 1984 SC 1401, wherein Their Lordships have held that rigid and inflexible view of jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be taken.
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
Their Lordships have also held that Article 227 or Article 226 was devised to advance justice and not to thwart it. Even as early as in 1954 the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh Vs. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 had held that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority apart from and independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court.
Vadivelu vs Sundaram And Ors on 10 October, 2000
It is also relevant to note the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Vadivelu Vs Sundaram, 2000 (4) CTC 302 regarding the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the said decision, Their Lordships have held in para 26 that when there is error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of the law laid down by this Court, by exercising the revisional powers, the Court can set aside the order passed by the Tribunal to do justice between the parties. It is clear that error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court can be set aside by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. As already referred to by me, in the case of granting injunction without hearing the opposite party, it is mandatory on the part of the trial Court to record the reasons for its opinion for granting such injunction. When the said condition is violated, I am of the view that in order to do justice between the parties, this Court can interfere by exercising the revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
"(i) Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161) wherein the Apex Court has laid down as follows :
The Victoria Edward Hall Rep. By Its ... vs M. Samraj And 5 Others on 30 April, 2001
iii. The Victoria Edward Hall Vs. M.Samraj (reported in 2001 (3) CTC 129); and
iv. Shanita Holdings SDN, BHD, Malaysia Vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt.Limited (reported in 2009 (2) CTC 210).
Shanita Holdings Sdn vs Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited on 13 February, 2009
iii. The Victoria Edward Hall Vs. M.Samraj (reported in 2001 (3) CTC 129); and
iv. Shanita Holdings SDN, BHD, Malaysia Vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt.Limited (reported in 2009 (2) CTC 210).