Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)
1. The State Of Haryana vs Surinder Kumar Mittal on 17 September, 2013 cites

The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs Sitaram Yadav & Anr. on 13 December, 2002

11.   Similar principle of law, was laid down, in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Shivkant Shankar Naik, Revision Petition No.961 of 1997, The Accountant General (A&E-II) Vs. Sitaram Yadav and Anr. Revision Petition No.933 of 2001, The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Pant and Anr., Revision Petition No.1115 of 2001, The Principal Accountant General Vs. Jia Lal, Revision Petition No.1319 of 2001, and The Accountant General (A&E-II) Vs. D.R. Nagwanshi and Anr., Revision Petition No.1775 of 2001, decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on 13.12.2002, as also in Om Prakash Sethi Vs. Account General, Haryana (A&E), Revision Petition No.3878 of 2009, decided on 06.07.2010, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nai Bahu vs Ramnarayan & Others on 14 October, 1977

The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 83 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Natraj Studios (P) Ltd vs Navrang Studios & Anr on 7 January, 1981

The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 183 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999

The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 739 - Full Document

Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of Bombay & Ors on 26 August, 1975

Lrs., (1990) 1 SCC 193, this Court, after placing reliance on large number of its earlier judgments particularly in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, performance cannot be forced in any other manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 529 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954

Lrs., (1990) 1 SCC 193, this Court, after placing reliance on large number of its earlier judgments particularly in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 496; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; and Chandrika Misir & Anr. v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 held, that a decree without jurisdiction is a nullity. It is a coram non judice; when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights, remedy has to be sought only under the provisions of that Act and the Common Law Court has no jurisdiction; where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in specified manner, performance cannot be forced in any other manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1029 - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat vs Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Ors on 5 August, 1996

9. Law does not permit any court/ tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such a authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject matter. For the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing;, it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. (Vide: Setrucharlu Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore, AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 172 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr on 26 September, 2005

9. Law does not permit any court/ tribunal/authority/forum to usurp jurisdiction on any ground whatsoever, in case, such a authority does not have jurisdiction on the subject matter. For the reason that it is not an objection as to the place of suing;, it is an objection going to the nullity of the order on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Thus, for assumption of jurisdiction by a court or a tribunal, existence of jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent. But once such jurisdictional fact is found to exist, the court or tribunal has power to decide on the adjudicatory facts or facts in issue. (Vide: Setrucharlu Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore, AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 371 - C K Thakker - Full Document

The Accountant General (A&E-Ii;) vs D.R. Nagwanshi & Anr. on 13 December, 2002

11.   Similar principle of law, was laid down, in The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Shivkant Shankar Naik, Revision Petition No.961 of 1997, The Accountant General (A&E-II) Vs. Sitaram Yadav and Anr. Revision Petition No.933 of 2001, The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Pant and Anr., Revision Petition No.1115 of 2001, The Principal Accountant General Vs. Jia Lal, Revision Petition No.1319 of 2001, and The Accountant General (A&E-II) Vs. D.R. Nagwanshi and Anr., Revision Petition No.1775 of 2001, decided by a Four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, on 13.12.2002, as also in Om Prakash Sethi Vs. Account General, Haryana (A&E), Revision Petition No.3878 of 2009, decided on 06.07.2010, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next