Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Guran Ditta vs T. Ram Ditta on 24 April, 1928
In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta
the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause
of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973)
came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a
substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law
which was involved in the case.
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
In Sir Chunilal case6 the Constitution Bench
expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras
High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju: (Sir Chunilal case6, SCR
p. 557)
"When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference
of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that
question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would
be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was
practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general
principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the
only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the
case it would not be a substantial question of law."
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
23. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not
previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a
material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as
the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law
"involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the
pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact
arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of
law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for
the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case
unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the
facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial
one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being
the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation
to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in
the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari.)
Kashmir Singh vs Harnam Singh & Anr on 3 March, 2008
(ii) Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and another reported in 2008 (4) SCALE
State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal on 2 May, 2008
(iii) State Bank of India and others v. S.N.Goya reported in 2009-1-L.W.1.
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1973
Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
(i) Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 545. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1