Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors on 19 October, 2010
Similarly, despite the strenuous
argument made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this court is
of the considered opinion that there is nothing from which it can be held that
the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below is vitiated by
perversity, as such, the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur (supra),
cited on the point does not appear to help the appellant in any way.
P. Chandrasekharan & Others vs S. Kanakarajan & Others on 27 April, 2007
51) This court is not convinced to accept the argument advanced by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there has been any
misconstruction of any document or that there has been a wrong application
of any principle of law in construing of any document involved in this case.
There has been no misreading of evidence by the learned courts below.
Hence, the ratio of the case of (i) Sk. Bhikan (supra), (ii) Hero Vinoth
(supra), and (iii) P. Chandrashekharan & Ors. (supra), cited by the appellant
does not appear to help the appellants.
Smt. Gitarani Paul vs Dibyendra Kundu Alias Dibyendra Kumar ... on 6 December, 1990
i. Gitarani Paul V. Dibyendra Kundu @ Dibyendra Kumar Kundu,
(1991) 1 SCC 1.
Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997
ii. Panchugopal Barua & Ors. V. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.,
(1997) 4 SCC 713.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
777.
vi. Union of India V. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148.
vii.
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
c. Anathula Sudhakar V. Y. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs., (2008) 4
SCC 594.
Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006
47) As there is no pleading by the appellants on record, this court is
bound by the ratio of the case of Hero Vinoth (supra). The relevant
paragraph 20 of the said case reads as follows:-
Bhikan Sk.Noor Mohd vs Mehamoodabee Sk.Afzal & Ors on 20 February, 2017
51) This court is not convinced to accept the argument advanced by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there has been any
misconstruction of any document or that there has been a wrong application
of any principle of law in construing of any document involved in this case.
There has been no misreading of evidence by the learned courts below.
Hence, the ratio of the case of (i) Sk. Bhikan (supra), (ii) Hero Vinoth
(supra), and (iii) P. Chandrashekharan & Ors. (supra), cited by the appellant
does not appear to help the appellants.
1