Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)Shankar Popat Gaidhani vs Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 14 February, 2003
20.1 Placing reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shankar Popat Gaidhani v. Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. , it was contended that the Appellate Court would not be entitled to grant any additional decree in favour of a person who was entitled to file cross appeal or cross objections. In the said matter, the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land was decreed without any direction for delivery of the possession in favour of the purchaser because the property was alleged to be in the possession of the tenants. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the vendor preferred an appeal, the appeal was dismissed, but, however the Appellate Court directed that the possession be also given to the non-appealing respondent/plaintiff. The Apex Court, in such circumstances, observed that present was not a case for exercise of powers under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code. There, the Court was not adjusting the equities between the co-respondents. The case on hands before the Supreme Court was a case where a particular relief was denied to the plaintiff and the appeal was filed by the defendant; he did not file any cross objections to seek further and better relief, nor filed an independent appeal to seek further and better relief.
The State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bakshish Singh on 8 September, 1998
The judgement in the matter of State of Punjab (supra), in fact, supports what has been said and argued by Shri Rajni Mehta.
Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs Basanti Devi And Anr on 28 September, 1999
20.4 Shri Marshall has also placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and Anr. reported at . In the said matter, on a complaint filed by Basanti Devi, widow of Bhim Singh, under Section 18 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986, the State Commissioner by its judgement directed the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and however, exonerated the Life Insurance Corporation. The matter went upto the Supreme Court. After considering the earlier judgements, the Apex Court held that Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code clothe the Appellate Court with extraordinary powers.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Mahant Dhangir And Another vs Madan Mohan And Others on 28 October, 1987
The Apex Court, placing reliance upon a judgement in the matter of Mahant Dhangir (supra), held that the sweep of the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the appellant and the respondent, but, also between the respondent and the co-respondents. The Supreme Court in the said matter observed that the appeal filed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking deserves to be allowed, but, the Insurance Company could not stand exonerated. The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Rule 33 of Order XLI, allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, but, at the same time, directed the Insurance Company to make payment of the amount. It is in such case the powers under Rule 33 of Order XLI are required to be exercised. Once the Court finds that its interference in the appeal is likely to interfere with the rights of the non-appealing decree-holder/respondent and in a given case, such decree-holder - respondent would be entitled to the relief against the co-respondent, then, the Appellate Court under Rule 33 of Order XLI would be entitled to modify the decree to suit the purpose.
Section 18 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
1