Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
K.Lubna vs Beevi on 13 January, 2020
17. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is a well settled
principle that a pure question of law which goes to the root of the matter can
12/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.49 of 2021
be raised and decided at any stage of the proceedings, provided the relevant
facts necessary for deciding such question are already available on record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Lubna v. Beevi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC
524, has held that when the relevant facts are already on record, a pure
question of law can be examined even at the appellate stage. It has been
observed as follows:-
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs M/S. Sanman Rice Mills on 8 October, 2018
19. There can be no dispute regarding the limited scope of
interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
15/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.49 of 2021
However, the said decision would not assist the respondent in the facts of the
present case. The issue involved here does not relate to re-appreciation of
evidence or re-evaluation of the factual findings recorded by the arbitral
tribunal. The challenge raised by the appellant relates to the legality of the
relief granted by the arbitrator.
Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh vs Walchand Ramchand Kothari on 1 December, 1950
10. On the legal principle, it is trite to say that a pure question of
law can be examined at any stage, including before this Court. If the
factual foundation for a case has been laid and the legal consequences of
the same have not been examined, the examination of such legal
consequences would be a pure question of law [Yeswant Deorao
Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari, 1950 SCC 766 : 1950 SCR
852 : AIR 1951 SC 16] .
Chitturi Subbanna vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others on 18 December, 1964
11. No doubt the legal foundation to raise a case by including it in
the grounds of appeal is mandated. Such mandate was fulfilled by moving
a separate application for permission to urge additional grounds, a course
of action, which has already been examined by, and received the
imprimatur of this Court in Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa
Subbanna [Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna, (1965) 2 SCR 661 :
Hubtown Solaris Premises Co-Operative ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Gr.Mumbai And ... on 26 October, 2020
12. We may also usefully refer to what has been observed by Lord
Watson in Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh [Connecticut Fire
Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh, 1892 AC 473] in the following words: (AC p.