Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr vs S.N. Thakur And Anr on 25 April, 1986 cites

Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961

The High Court has not at all considered this important aspect of the matter which alone was sufficient to put an end to these proceedings. It was suggested by Mr. D. Goburdhan that the application given by him for re-calling the order of dismissal of the complaint would amount to a fresh complaint. We are, 779 however, unable to agree with this contention because there was no fresh complaint and it is not well settled that a second complaint can lie only on fresh facts or even on the previous facts only if a special case is made out. This has been held by this Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (supra). For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court maintaining the order of the Magistrate dated 3.5.1972 is set aside and the order of the Magistrate dated 3.5.1972 summoning the appellant is hereby quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 269 - S K Das - Full Document

M/S Shenoy And Co. Represented By Its ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer , Circle 11 ... on 10 April, 1985

Normally, when several matters are disposed of by a common Judgment, and the defeated party files only one appeal against one such matter and succeeds in that matter, he would still be faced with the plea of finality of the Judgment based on res-judicata by those against whom appeals were not filed. But this plea did not find favour with this Court in the above 781 case. It was held that the Judgment rendered by this Court in one appeal, took away the finality of the common Judgment even against those against whom appeals were not filed because of the all pervasive operation of Article 141.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - V Khalid - Full Document
1   2 Next