Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Section 141 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
Mr. U. N. R. Rao drew our attention to the first of the tests laid down by this Court in T. V. Tuljaram Rao v. M. K. R. V. Alagappa Chettiar, (1912) 35 Mad 1, and extracted in the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, viz., the Courts must give sufficient allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. We are of the view that in this case, the denial of the oppurtunity to the appellants to have inspection of the documents in the list attached to the plaint would cause grave and substantial injustice to them. In this view, we are of the view that the order of the learned Judge is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that the appeal is maintainable. We overrule the preliminary objection.
T.V. Tuljaram Row vs M.K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar on 29 September, 1910
Mr. U. N. R. Rao drew our attention to the first of the tests laid down by this Court in T. V. Tuljaram Rao v. M. K. R. V. Alagappa Chettiar, (1912) 35 Mad 1, and extracted in the decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, viz., the Courts must give sufficient allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. We are of the view that in this case, the denial of the oppurtunity to the appellants to have inspection of the documents in the list attached to the plaint would cause grave and substantial injustice to them. In this view, we are of the view that the order of the learned Judge is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and that the appeal is maintainable. We overrule the preliminary objection.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another (And ... on 19 January, 1962
Following its own decision in Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh . , the Supreme Court took the view that the suit would commence from the moment an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis as required by Order 33 was presented and therefore the provision of Rule 12 of Order 11 relating to discovery would in terms apply to proceedings under Order 33. With reference to the English law, on the subject the Supreme Court observed as follows-
The Amending Act, 1897
Section 41 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966
In M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the question whether the provisions of Order 11, Rule 12 regarding discovery of documents would be applicable to proceedings under Order 33. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of O. 11, R. 12 would be applicable.
Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar And Company ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 March, 1980
In Ram Chandra v. State of U. P., the question arose whether provisions of the Civil P. C. would apply generally to a proceeding before a Civil Court arising out of a reference to it by a Magistrate under Section 146(1), Criminal P. C. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative.