Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)The Secretary Of State For India vs Narsibhai Dadabhai Patel on 23 July, 1923
Now, so far as Secretary of State for India v. Narsibhai Dadabhai is concerned, a question of jurisdiction was involved there inasmuch as on the finding which was recorded as to the necessity of the Secretary of State being added, the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case at all depended.
Hari Bhikaji vs Naro Visvanath on 18 March, 1885
In Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath the question was practically the same as in the present case because it was held that the subject-matter of the suit was not res judicata. As no second appeal lay to this Court, the suit having been of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes, a revision application was made and it was held that a wrong decision on a question of res judicata is not a subject for the interference of the High Court under Section 622, that is, Section 115 now of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Bai Atrani vs Deepsing Baria on 27 July, 1915
In Bai Atrani v. Deepsing Baria Thahor it is distinctly stated in the judgment that no other remedy was available.
The Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs Vasudev Baburao Kamat on 15 August, 1927
509, 524 and Bombay Steam Navigation Go. v. Vasudev (1937) 29 Bom. L.R. 1551,--this last is also stated to be a case of a special character--but all these cases proceeded to their determination and there had been a final decision as between the parties.
The Pannaji Devi Chand, A Marwadi Firm ... vs The Firm Of Senaji Kapur Chand on 6 February, 1930
The decision is in Pannaji Devichand v. Senaji Kapurehand (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 175.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Senaji Kapurchand vs Pannaji Devichand on 14 September, 1921
Against this, there was an appeal to the Privy Council and the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, the case being Senaji Kapurchand v. Pannaji Devichand After the disposal of the case by the Privy Council it was contended in the Dharwar suit that in the face of this decision the suit could not go on as the cause of action was the same as in the Bellary suit and therefore in view of the Privy Council decision the suit would not lie. The Subordinate Judge, after hearing arguments on this question, wrote a finding on this preliminary issue in which he held, for reasons into which I need not go, that the present suit was not barred by res judicata, the facts on which the plaintiff's plaint is based being distinguishable from those in the Bellary suit. The suit was accordingly ordered to proceed on the merits. Against this finding, which of course involves the further progress of the suit, a revisional application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been presented to this Court by the defendant.
Rudra Prasad Pande And Ors. vs Mathura Prasad Pande And Ors. on 12 May, 1925
L.R. 715, Rudra Prasad Pande v. Mathura Prasad Pande (1925) I.L.R. 47 All.
Buddhoo Lal And Anr. vs Mewa Ram on 26 January, 1921
916, and Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram (1921) I.L.R. 43 All. 564, F.B., which is exactly on the point, and it was held that the finding on an issue is not covered by Section 115.