Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 152 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
For the reasons
as aforesaid the judgments in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana: (supra); A.
R. Antulay (supra); Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra); Rupadhar Pujari (supra);
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu (supra); Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma
(supra); State of Maharashtra v. Hindutan Construction Company Limited
(supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) relied on
by the respondent/writ petitioner are not applicable.
Government Of Karnataka & Ors vs Smt. Gowramma And Ors on 14 December, 2007
For the reasons
as aforesaid the judgments in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana: (supra); A.
R. Antulay (supra); Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra); Rupadhar Pujari (supra);
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu (supra); Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma
(supra); State of Maharashtra v. Hindutan Construction Company Limited
(supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) relied on
by the respondent/writ petitioner are not applicable.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
The judgement in State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra) is also
inapplicable as therein by a miscellaneous application separate cause of action
was raised. Since the respondent/writ petitioner has acquired substantive right
to get interest and as substantive justice will prevail over the procedural law, -
that is, the Code of Civil Procedure, - the judgment under challenge may not be
interfered with.
State Of Kerala vs Kumari T. P. Roshana & Anr on 17 January, 1979
For the reasons
as aforesaid the judgments in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana: (supra); A.
R. Antulay (supra); Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra); Rupadhar Pujari (supra);
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu (supra); Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma
(supra); State of Maharashtra v. Hindutan Construction Company Limited
(supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) relied on
by the respondent/writ petitioner are not applicable.
State Of Maharashtra vs M/S Hindustan Construction Co.Ltd on 1 April, 2010
For the reasons
as aforesaid the judgments in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana: (supra); A.
R. Antulay (supra); Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra); Rupadhar Pujari (supra);
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu (supra); Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma
(supra); State of Maharashtra v. Hindutan Construction Company Limited
(supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) relied on
by the respondent/writ petitioner are not applicable.
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
For the reasons
as aforesaid the judgments in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana: (supra); A.
R. Antulay (supra); Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra); Rupadhar Pujari (supra);
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu (supra); Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma
(supra); State of Maharashtra v. Hindutan Construction Company Limited
(supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) relied on
by the respondent/writ petitioner are not applicable.
M/S Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. P. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 December, 2006
Submission is that the interim order contained in paragraph 8 of the order
dated 12th December, 2005 issued in Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries cannot
be the basis for grant of interest at the rate of 12% since the Supreme Court
while finally disposing of the matter - Ashoka Smokeless Coal Industries (P)
Limited v. Union of India: (2007) 2 SCC 640 did not grant interest.