Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)
Satyender vs Saroj on 17 August, 2022 cites

Kirodi (Since Deceased) Through His Lr vs Ram Parkash on 10 May, 2019

9. The defendants are now before this Court. The first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant/defendant before this 6 Court is that the High Court while deciding a second appeal did not formulate any substantial question of law, which was an essential requirement under Section 100 of the CPC. The learned counsel would argue that a second appeal can only be admitted and heard on a substantial question of law and since no substantial question of law was formulated nor any arguments advanced by the parties before the Second Appellate Court (High Court) as mandated by Section 100 of the CPC, the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. This seemingly attractive argument, however, does not hold any good in the present case as the subject matter of the present dispute is from Haryana where the governing provision would be Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 of CPC. This was held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Pankajakshi & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors.1 which was later followed in Kirodi v. Ram Parkash & Ors.2
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kulwant Kaur & Ors vs Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 21 March, 2001

“97. Repeal and savings. — (1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as 3 (2001) 4 SCC 262 10 amended by this Act, stand repealed.” In Pankajakshi (supra) a Constitution Bench held that the reasoning given in Kulwant Kaur (supra) for holding that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act stood repealed was not correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 418 - Full Document
1   2 Next