Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Bhawar Lal vs Ramchandar on 10 July, 2024 cites

Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors on 13 April, 2005

13/ Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swamy Atmananda Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam reported in Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 11-07-2024 18:21:01 6 (2005) 10 SCC 51, it has been held that "even without framing of issue of res-judicata, the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed in the Court and relied on by the parties make out the case of res-judicata, then the findings of the Court that the parties to the suit is estoppel by raising certain issues already decided, cannot be disturbed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 129 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012

16/ Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that how the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based upon no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The Supreme court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under section 100 of the CPC the Court can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based upon no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hafazat Hussan Vs. Abdul Majeed and others , 2011(7) SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012(8) SCC 148 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 11-07-2024 18:21:01 7 Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agralwal 2912(7) SCC 288.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 1364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt.Usha Rai vs Shrikrishna Sanskrit Pathshala Samiti on 27 March, 2023

6/ During pendency of the trial, respondent/defendant filed an application under section 11 read with section 151 of C.P.C, which has been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 15/07/2022. Without framing of issues and adducing evidence, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 11-07-2024 18:21:01 3 the trial Court committed grave error in dismissing his sut by allowing the application filed under section 11 read with section 151 of C.P.C. The same has been affirmed by First Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have committed error in not considering the provision of section 11 of C.P.C. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, he prays that present Second Appeal deserves to be allowed on the substantial questions of law as proposed by the appellant. Learned counsel has also place reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Usha Rai and another Vs. Sanskrit Pathsala Samiti (Second Appeal no. 414/2000 decided on 03/08/2023) 7/ I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record with due care.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - D D Bansal - Full Document
1