Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020
Suffice to say that this is the obtaining position of
law as Hon'ble Supreme Court as recently as on 27.08.2020 in Nazir
Mohamed case [Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC
676] reiterated this legal position. The most relevant paragraphs are
20/27
S.A.No.475 of 2019 &
C.M.P.No.16426 of 2019
paragraphs 29, 30, 35 to 37 and the same read as follows:
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal , this Court referred to
and relied upon Chunilal v. Mehta and Sons (supra) and other
judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given
set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial
questions of law.'
Yogesh Chunilal Maniyar vs Bakul Chandulal Mehta And Mrs. Jyotsna ... on 23 June, 2016
In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal , this Court referred to
and relied upon Chunilal v. Mehta and Sons (supra) and other
judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given
set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial
questions of law.'
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons, Ltd vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 5 March, 1962
23. The expression 'substantial question of law' occurring in Section
100 CPC has been elucidatively explained in a long line of authorities and a
catena of case laws starting from the celebrated Sir Chunilal Mehta's case
[Sir Chunilal V.Mehta and Sons Ltd., Vs. Century Spinning and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314] wherein a
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by a
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao's case
[Rimmalapudi Subba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju And Others reported in AIR
1951 Madras 969 (FB)].
Kirpa Ram (D) Tr.Lrs. . vs Surender Deo Gaur on 16 November, 2020
26. This takes us to Kirpa Ram principle being principle laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirpa Ram Vs. Surendra Deo Gaur and others
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 935 wherein the principle that a second
appeal can be dismissed at the admission stage without formulating a
substantial question of law if none arises has been reiterated. Drawing
inspiration from Kirpa Ram principle, this Court, in the light of narrative
thus far, discussion and dispositive reasoning, deems it appropriate to
dismiss captioned second appeal holding that no substantial question of law
arises in the case on hand. Captioned second appeal is dismissed.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
This proposition finds support from Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari .
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
23. The expression 'substantial question of law' occurring in Section
100 CPC has been elucidatively explained in a long line of authorities and a
catena of case laws starting from the celebrated Sir Chunilal Mehta's case
[Sir Chunilal V.Mehta and Sons Ltd., Vs. Century Spinning and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314] wherein a
Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by a
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao's case
[Rimmalapudi Subba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju And Others reported in AIR
1951 Madras 969 (FB)].