Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.74 seconds)
Suresh Kumar vs Nabita Kumari And Ors on 29 August, 2017 cites

Krishnan vs Backiam & Anr on 11 September, 2007

In Krishnan v. Backiam (2007) 12 SCC 190, it has been held at paragraph -11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93) "11. It may be mentioned that the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. No ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:25:57 :::HCHP 11 doubt the findings of fact of the first appellate court can be challenged in second appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a question of law has .
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 83 - M Katju - Full Document

Gurvachan Kaur & Ors vs Salikram (Dead) Through Lrs on 18 March, 2009

In Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram (2010) 15 SCC 530, at para 10, this principle has been reiterated: (SCC p. 532) "10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse. This being the position, it must be held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on the issues of existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and default committed by the latter in payment of rent."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 95 - Full Document

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

In Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC 262, this Court has dealt with the limited leeway available to the High Court in second appeal. To quote para 34: (SCC pp.278 -79) "34. Admittedly, Section 100 has introduced a definite restriction on to the exercise of jurisdiction in ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2017 23:25:57 :::HCHP 13 a second appeal so far as the High Court is concerned. Needless to record that the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced such an embargo for such definite objectives and since we are .
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 418 - Full Document

S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013

In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602, after referring to the decisions of this Court, starting with Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635, it was held at para 30: (S.R.Tewari case 6, SCC p. 615) "30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 279 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984

In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602, after referring to the decisions of this Court, starting with Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635, it was held at para 30: (S.R.Tewari case 6, SCC p. 615) "30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 357 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next