Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kashmir Singh vs Harnam Singh & Anr on 3 March, 2008
In the case Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh (supra),
the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs no.9, 10, 11, 12, 13
and 15 as under:-
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons, Ltd vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 5 March, 1962
11. Considering the questions suggested by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, it does not require any
further hearing or re-determination. The question is practically
covered by the decision of the highest court and/or there is no
further determination of any of the questions suggested by the
learned counsel is required. Considering the test which is
enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sir Chunilal V.
Mehta & Sons Ltd. V. Century Spinning and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 1962 AIR (SC) 1314 for
determining whether a question of law raised in a given case is
substantial question. The substantial question of law must be
Page 11 of 15
Downloaded on : Fri Oct 14 20:37:55 IST 2022
C/SA/374/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2022
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.
Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) By Lrs. vs Kunhambu Karanavan on 19 September, 2019
In the case of Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraphs
no.9 and 11to 14 as under:-
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1973
The Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993
1