Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
M. Sadaksharavel vs State Bank Of India on 21 February, 1995 cites

Major S. S. Khanna vs Brig. F.J. Dillon on 14 August, 1963

In S.S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon , the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court that the whole suit may be disposed of on the issue of law alone and the Code conferred no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on merely issues of law and facts as preliminary issues and normally all the issues should be tried by the Court and that failure to do so would result in a lopsided trial of the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 332 - J C Shah - Full Document

Dhirendranath Chandra vs Apurba Krishna Chandra And Ors. on 1 August, 1978

In Dhirendranath v. Apurba Krishna , a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court held expressing a view that a plain reading of Rule 2 will show that ordinarily even if the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court is bound to pronounce judgment on all issues and that the ordinary rule is subject to only one exception carved out in sub rule (2). It was also held therein that where the trial Court disallowed the request of the petitioner to try the issue, namely, whether the suit was barred under Section 66(1) of the Civil Procedure Code as preliminary issue there was no error touching the exercise of jurisdiction on the part of trial Court as that was itself a discretionary matter.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Usha Sales Ltd. vs Malcolm Gomes And Ors. on 23 June, 1983

In Usha Sales Limited v. Malcolm Gomes and Ors. , a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held, while construing the scope of Order 14 as amended in 1976, that after amendment in 1976 there is an obligation cast upon the Court that even though a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Courts shall subject to the provision of sub rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues and in other words, the obligation to decide a question of law as a preliminary issue if that decision dispose of the case or part of the case is no longer there. It was also held that the discretion to decide any other issue/her than the one contemplated under sub rule (2) of Order 14 as a preliminary issue has been taken away totally from the Court and an obligation has been cast upon the Court that it must proceed to hear all the issues and pronounce judgment on the same.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Ramdayal Umraomal vs Pannalal Jagannathji on 12 January, 1979

In Ramdayal Umraomal v. Pannalal Jagannathji , a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed the view that even an issue relating to jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence and that where an issue relating to jurisdiction, is a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 34 - G L Oza - Full Document
1