Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)Section 115 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965
and Pandurang Dhondi v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, , have not been affected and have in fact been relied upon. Mr. Kurdukar, the learned Advocate for opponents Nos.
D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969
1 and 2, has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, , wherein it was held that unless errors of fact or errors of law have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court, it would not be competent for the High Court to correct such errors under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965
17. Now while considering the scope of O. 21, R. 58, C.P. Code the Supreme Court in Sawai Singhai v. Union of India, , had occasion to observe as follows:-
Section 80 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The M.L.J. Press Private Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner For ... on 25 March, 1970
"The dicta of the majority of the House of Lords, in the above case would show the extent to which 'lack' and 'excess' of jurisdiction have been assimilated or, in other words, the extent to which we have moved away from the traditional concept of 'jurisdiction'. The effect of the dicta in that case is to reduce the difference between jurisdictional error and error of law within jurisdiction almost to vanishing point. The practical effect of the decision is that any error of law can be reckoned as jurisdictional. This comes perilously close to saying that there is jurisdiction if the decision is right in law but none if it is wrong. Almost any misconstruction of a statute can be represented as 'basing their decision on a matter with which they have no right to deal', 'imposing and unwarranted condition' or 'addressing themselves to a wrong question'. The majority opinion in the case leaves a Court or Tribunal with virtually no margin of legal error. Whether there is excess of jurisdiction or merely error within jurisdiction can be determined only by construing the empowering statute, which will give little guidance. It is really a question of how much latitude the Court is prepared to allows.
M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966
In the end it can only be a value judgment(See H.W.R. Wade, 'Constitutional and Administrative Aspects of the Anismenic Case', Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 85, 1969, P. 198). Why is it that a wrong decision on a question of limitation or res judicata was treated as a jurisdictional error and liable to be interfered with in revision? It is a bit difficult to understand how an erroneous decision on a question of limitation or res judocata would oust the jurisdictionof the Court in the primitive sense of the term and render the decision or a decree embodying the decision a nullity liable to collateral attack. The reason can only be that the error of law was considered as vital by the Court. And there is no yardstick to determine the magnitude of the error other than the opinion of the Court".