Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)Chandi Prasad & Ors vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors on 1 October, 2004
15. More recently, the decision in Chandi Prasad
[Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724]
was followed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan [Shanthi v. T.D.
Vishwanathan, (2019) 11 SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ)
787] rendered on 24-10-2018 in the following terms :
Shanthi vs T.D.Vishwanathan And Ors on 24 October, 2018
(Shanthi case [Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan, (2019) 11
SCC 419 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 787] , SCC OnLine SC
para 7)
"7. ... When an appeal is prescribed under a statute and
the appellate forum is invoked and entertained, for all
intents and purposes, the suit continues. When a higher
forum entertains an appeal and passes an order on
merit, the doctrine of merger would apply. The doctrine
of merger is based on the principles of the propriety in
the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. The doctrine
of merger does not make a distinction between an order
of reversal, modification or an order of confirmation
passed by the appellate authority. The said doctrine
postulates that there cannot be more than one operative
decree governing the same subject-matter at a given
point of time."
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
Section 49 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
"14. The decision in Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed v.
State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] was followed by a
three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Chandi
Prasad [Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC
724] , which held thus : (Chandi Prasad case [Chandi
Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad, (2004) 8 SCC 724] , SCC p.
731, paras 23-24)
Page 4 of 30
// 5 //
"23. The doctrine of merger is based on the principles of
propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system.
The doctrine of merger does not make a distinction
between an order of reversal, modification or an order of
confirmation passed by the appellate authority. The said
doctrine postulates that there cannot be more than one
operative decree governing the same subject-matter at a
given point of time.
Madan Mohan Pathak And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 February, 1978
803. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-24 of the said
decision has held as follows:-
Virender Singh Hooda And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 October, 2004
4.6. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and
Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported
in AIR 2005 SC-137. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-65 &
70 (3) of the said decision has held as follows:-