Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
The said phrase has been explained to mean "a
reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous
to those specified in the rule" (Refer: Chajju Ram
v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius)."
Union Of India vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors on 23 April, 2013
to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The
same principles have been reiterated in Union of
India v. Sandur manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs V. Narayana Reddy on 18 August, 2022
18. We also find advantageous to quote here following
Paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.
Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1034:-
Chajju Ram vs Neki on 27 February, 1922
The said phrase has been explained to mean "a
reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous
to those specified in the rule" (Refer: Chajju Ram
v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius)."
Alok Shanker Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 February, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 5 of 2025 Page 31 of 39
from the use of which he had been deprived. Payment of interest is
a necessary corollary to the return on money retained by a person
unjustly or unlawfully. This has been explained by the Supreme
Court succinctly in Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
(2007) 3 SCC 545 by way of the following illustrations:-
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 August, 2018
In this context, we also find the following observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 18.02.2025
in Dr. Purnima Advani and Anr. v. Government of NCT and Anr. Civil
Appeal No.2643 of 2025, very material:-
Hari Chand Ghanshyam Das And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 8 January, 1991
In Hari Chand v. State of U.P., 2012 (1)
Pure Helium India Pvt. Ltd vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission on 9 October, 2003
"Appellant is a public sector undertaking.
Respondent is the Central Government. We agree
that in principle as also in equity the appellant is
entitled to interest on the amount deposited on
application of principle of restitution. In the facts
and circumstances of this case and particularly
having regard to the fact that the amount paid by the
appellant has already been refunded, we direct that
the amount deposited by the appellant shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Reference in
this connection may be made to Pure Helium Indian
(P) Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission, JT
2003 (Suppl.