Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)
Maharajkumar Hanuvantsinhji ... vs Lh Of Decd Pragmalji Third Of Kutchh on 7 September, 2022 cites

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

"4. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a Page 26 of 41 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 12 20:38:42 IST 2022 C/SA/216/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022 valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide : Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

G. Amalorpavam & Ors vs R.C. Diocese Of Madurai & Ors on 6 March, 2006

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 235 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001

"4. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a Page 26 of 41 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 12 20:38:42 IST 2022 C/SA/216/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/09/2022 valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide : Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 (3) SCC 179 and Madhukar v. Sangram, 2001 (4) SCC 756."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 383 - B Kumar - Full Document

Gannmani Anasuya & Ors vs Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors on 17 May, 2007

Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on such point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the Court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions. (Vide: Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146; Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124; G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, 2006 (3) SCC 224; Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari, 2007 (8) SCC 600; and Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhari, AIR 2007 (SC 2380: 2007 (10) SCC 296.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 195 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next