Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p.
188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram,
(2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.)
B.V.Nagesh & Anr vs H.V.Sreenivasa Murthy on 24 September, 2010
20. Again in B.V Nagesh & Anr. vs. H.V.
Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530, this Court
taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court
reiterated the aforementioned principle with these
words:
State Bank Of India & Anr vs M/S. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr on 18 August, 2011
21. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by
this Court while reiterating the same principle in
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons
International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174 and
Union of India vs. K.V. Lakshman & Ors. (2016)
13 SCC 124.
Union Of India vs K.V. Lakshman & Ors on 29 June, 2016
21. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by
this Court while reiterating the same principle in
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Emmsons
International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174 and
Union of India vs. K.V. Lakshman & Ors. (2016)
13 SCC 124.
Kurian Chacko vs Varkey Ouseph on 25 September, 1968
13. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge – V.R.
Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge
of Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal
under Section 96 of the Code in Kurian Chacko vs.
Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded
the first Appellate Court of its duty to decide the
first appeal. In his distinctive style of writing with
subtle power of expression, the learned judge held
as under:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
In Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari
(Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179, this Court
held (at pages 188-189) as under:
1