Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.49 seconds)Shankarlal Aggarwal And Ors vs Shankarlal Poddar And Ors on 24 January, 1963
30. As regards the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M. Manohar v. T. R. Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 88 Comp Cas 375, that decision merely purports to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankerlal Aggarwal v. Shankarlal Poddar [1965] 35 Comp Cas 1; AIR 1965 SC 507 and in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokalchand, AIR 1967 SC 799.
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
It is true that if the question was about appeal against a judgment, the above quoted observations from Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786 would be very relevant.
M. Manohar And Another vs T.R. Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Others on 7 April, 1993
In the facts of the case before the Karnataka High Court in M. Manohar v. T. R. Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 88 Comp Cas 375, the learned company judge refused permission to a witness to refresh his memory with the help of notes which were permitted to be admitted in evidence, and the court held that it was a procedural order which did not affect the rights of the party. In our view, even on the basis of the interpretation that we are adopting, an appeal would not lie against such an order, as the decision not to permit a witness to refresh his memory with notes cannot be said to be an order affecting the rights of any party. Similarly, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Metro Malleable Manufacturers (P.)
Central Bank Of India vs Shri Gokal Chand on 12 September, 1966
27. As regards the decision of the apex court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799, 800, there the court was concerned with the provisions of Section 38(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, which read as under :