Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.31 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
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)
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:
Thiagarajan & Ors vs Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil & Ors on 16 March, 2004
26. Again in the case of Thiagarajan And Others vs. Sri
Venugopalaswamy B. Koil And Others reported in 2004
(5) SCC 762, a two Judge Bench of this Court in
paragraphs 17, 24, 25 and 26 observed as under:
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)
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)
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."
Rajeshwari vs Puran Indoria on 25 August, 2005
(See also: Rajeshwari v. Puran Indoria, (2005) 7 SCC 60).
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao vs E.V. Alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil And ... on 19 November, 1993
Salmond, on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. page 69, cited
in Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. alias
Balasaheb Vikhe Patil & ors., AIR 1994 SC 678).