Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.31 seconds)

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999

"9. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. (See Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438, Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 413 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722)
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 739 - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

25. A three-judge Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 speaking through R.C. Page 17 of 27 C/SA/146/2018 JUDGMENT Lahoti J (as His Lordship then was) examined the scope of Section 100 of CPC in detail and laid down the following propositions in paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 14 as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors on 7 May, 1997

"9. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. (See Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438, Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 413 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 169 - Full Document

Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997

"9. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. (See Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438, Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 413 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722)
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 173 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Talwar vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi on 6 December, 2010

In Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (2011) 1 SCC 673, this Court held that, "21...14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case, whether a question of law is a substantial one or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 167 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 Next