Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.09 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Municipal Committee, Amritsar vs Hazara Singh on 12 March, 1975
It is not permissible nor is it proper to read a judgment as a statute. Sentences occurring in a judgment have to be read in the proper context. It may not be correct to say that casual observation in a Supreme Court judgment or even obiter dicta unconnected with the facts of the case under discussion and not laying down any proposition of law have binding force as law declared by the Supreme Court under Art. 141 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court itself has laid down the guideline how to understand its judgments and not to tear sentences out of context in Municipal Committee v. Hazara Singh . In my view, with utmost respect, the sentences extracted above do not lay down anything different from what has been laid down by this Court in the decisions cited above."
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ratanlal Bansilal And Others vs Kishorilal Goenka And Others on 18 December, 1992
19. Shri Deshpande argues that in the present case not only some irrelevant material has been considered by the Courts below in deciding the question of possession, but they have also failed to consider some important material which was available to them on record. He further contends that the finding of possession is really based on no evidence and is really a perverse finding. Shri Deshpande further relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Five-judges-Bench of the Calcutta High Court has considered the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Deshpande submits that even if the question of possession is a question of fact, if while deciding that question which is germane to the very decision of the suit, if the Courts below relied on the irrelevant evidence or refused to consider the evidence which they were bound to consider and if the decision on such question is affected because of this non-appreciation or erroneous appreciation, then as between the parties the question of possession would assume a character of substantial question of law. The ratio in the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ratanlal Bansilal v. Kishorilal Goenka fully supports Shri Desh-
Section 91 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 25 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Fakirbhai Bhagwandas And Anr. vs Maganlal Haribhai And Anr. on 5 October, 1950
41. As has already been observed, once the finding of lawful possession goes in favour of the plaintiff, that should be the end of the matter, and, therefore, it is only to be seen as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to an injunction as prayed by her, of restraining the defendants from dispossessing her otherwise than by due course of law. The suit, as has been filed, is perfectly legal. It has been held by the Division Bench of our own Court in Fakirabhai Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribhai that it is not necessary for a person claiming injunction, to prove his title to the suit land. It is sufficient if he proves that he is in lawful possession of the land and his possession is invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title whatever.
1