Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Rajammal vs Pappayee Ammal on 9 October, 2002
(ii) The decision of this Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 406 (Rajammal vs. Pappayee Ammal). An excerpt from it would run thus:
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
(i) 2012(1) MWN (Civil) 840 (S.C.) [Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through L.Rs.] Certain excerpts from it would run thus:
Ritesh Tewari & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 21 September, 2010
In Ritesh Tiwari and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,2010(10) SCC 677, this court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under:
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 1967
Thus, in order to discover or obtain proper proof of the relevant facts, the court can ask the question to the parties concerned at any time and in any form. "Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest". Therefore, power is to be exercised with an object to subserve the cause of justice and public interest, and for getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. The purpose being to secure justice by full discovery of truth and an accurate knowledge of facts, the court can put questions to the parties, except those which fall within exceptions contained in the said provision itself (vide Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra and Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat].
Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005
(i)2005 (3) LW 736 (Kokilambal and others vs. N.Raman) and an excerpt para Nos.11 to 14 of it, would run thus:
R. Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs. And ... vs Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) By ... on 31 January, 1995
31.I would also bring it to the knowledge of the Courts below as well as the parties the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 630 R.RAJAGOPAL REDDY(DEAD) BY LRs. AND OTHERS VS. PADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN(DEAD) BY Lrs, wherein, it was held that Section 4(1) of the Act is not retrospective but it is retroactive in operation.