Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Narain Chand Mehta vs Krishna Kumar on 7 August, 1973 cites

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 19 September, 1966

Referring to Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Income tax Commissioner, Madras AIR 1957 SC 41 I had indicated how a mixed question of law and fact should be approached. Relying on the observations of there Lordships I pointed out that where a finding is given on a question of fact based upon an inference from facts, that is not always a question of law, but the proposition that an inference from facts is one of law will be correct in its application to mixed questions of law and fact though not pure questions of fact Inferences from facts may themselves be inferences of fact and not of law and such inferences are not open to review by the court. Inference from facts would be a question of fact or of law according as the point for determination is one of pure fact or mixed question of law and fact. When I went on to say that of the three component questions the first one whether the plaintiff has a necessity for the suit premises is primarily a question of fact. Likewise, whether it is bonafide is also largely a question of fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 371 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mirchumal vs Ramchandra And Anr. on 23 March, 1973

In a case reported in 1973 Weekly Law Notes page 214 Mirchumal v. Ramchandra and Anr., I had pointed cut that the question whether a landlord has a bonafide reasonable necessity for the suit premises is a mixed question of law and fact, and as in any other mixed question of law and fact there are two aspects: (i) regarding the existence of primary facts, and (ii) regarding the application of the legal principles to such primary facts.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1