Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.19 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Hari Shankar vs Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury on 5 December, 1961
It was noted by
the four-Judges Bench in Hari Shankar and others vs. Rao
Girdhari Lal Chowdhury (AIR 1963 SC 698) that the
distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one.
A right of appeal carries with it a right of re-hearing on
law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right
of appeal limits the re-hearing in some way, as has been
done in second appeals arising under the Code. The power of
hearing revision is generally given to a superior Court so
that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been
decided according to law. Reference was made to Section
115 of the Code to hold that the High Court's powers under
the said provision are limited to certain particular
categories of cases. The right there is confined to
jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone.
The State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel & Anr on 3 March, 1998
(See
The State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel
and Anr. (JT 1998 (2) SC 253)).
The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962
(Per Lord
Loreburn L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans (1910)
AC 445 (HL), quoted in Jamma Masjid, Mercara v.
Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors.(AIR 1962 SC 847).
Union Of India And Ors vs Filip Tiago De Gama Of Vedem Vasco De Gama on 30 November, 1989
The view was re-iterated
in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama (AIR 1990 SC 981).
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Madhya ... vs M/S Popular Trading Company, Ujjain on 5 April, 2000
While interpreting a provision the Court only
interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision
of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of
law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal
it, if deemed necessary. (See Commissioner of Sales Tax,
M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain (2000 (5) SCC 515).
The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial
interpretative process.
Chakkara Chappan vs Moidin Kutti on 28 October, 1898
"Appeal", is defined in the Oxford Dictionary, volume
I, page 398, as the transference of a case from an inferior
to a higher Court or tribunal in the hope of reversing or
modifying the decision of the former. In the Law Dictionary
by Sweet, the term "appeal" is defined as a proceeding
taken to rectify an erroneous decision of a Court by
submitting the question to a higher Court or Court of
appeal, and it is added that the term, therefore, includes,
in addition to the proceedings specifically so called, the
cases stated for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division
and the Court of Crown Cases reserved, and proceedings in
error. In the Law Dictionary by Bouvier an appeal is defined
as the removal of a case from a Court of inferior to one of
superior jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining a review
and re-trial, and it is explained that in its technical
sense it differs from a writ of error in this, that it
subjects both the law and the facts to a review and re-
trial, while the latter is a Common Law process which
involves matter of law only for re-examination; it is added,
however, that the term "appeal" is used in a comprehensive
sense so as to include both what is described technically
as an appeal and also the common law writ of error. As Mr.
Justice Subramania Ayyar observes in Chappan v. Moidin, 22
Mad 68 at p.80 the two things which are required to
constitute appellate jurisdiction are the existence of the
relation of superior and inferior Court and the power, on
the part of the former, to review decisions of the latter.
Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2000
In
Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and another vs. Union of India
and others (AIR 2000 SC 811), it was observed that if a
provision of statute is unconditionally omitted without a
saving clause in favour of pending proceedings, all actions
must stop where the omission finds them, and if final relief
has not been granted before the omission goes into effect,
there is no scope for granting it afterwards. There is
modification of this position by application of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act or by making special provisions.
Operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the
past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case
where a particular provision in the statute is omitted and
in its place another provision dealing with the same
contingency is introduced without a saving clause in favour
of pending proceedings, then it can be reasonably inferred
that the intention of the legislature is that the pending
proceedings shall continue but a fresh proceeding for the
same purpose may be initiated under the new provision.