Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 118 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ram Prasad vs Hari Narain And Ors. on 1 August, 1997
21. We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri (supra) followed and reiterated in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) is the correct view.
Bashir vs Smt. Hussain Bano on 28 February, 2005
So also in the matter of Bashir (supra), the learned single Judge has not considered that the word 'acts' in Rule 2 of Order 3 does not include act of power of attorney holder to appear as a witness on behalf of the party.
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
11. Counsel for respondent/plaintiff also relied on Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited , whereby the Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 was rather restricted and it could only see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal had proceeded within its parameters and in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or a Tribunal. The same would not be applicable in the present case since the impugned order required interpretation of Order 3, Rule 1 of the CPC, and the petition was hence maintainable.
Shri Humberto Luis & Another vs Shri Floriano Armando Luis & Another on 8 September, 1999
We are unable to agree with this view taken by the Bombay High Court in Floriano Armando (supra).
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
Considering the above on the anvil of the judgment in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, (AIR 2005 SC 439) (supra), the petition must fail, and thus I do not find any ground for interference in the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court may issue a fresh date for the appearance of defendant No. 1.
Shambhu Dutt Shastri vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 10 April, 1985
21. We hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri (supra) followed and reiterated in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) is the correct view.
1