Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Avinash S/O. Ganpatrao Shegaonkar vs // on 27 February, 2014 cites

Eruch Merwan Irani And Another vs Sardar Sorabji Ruttonji Patel And ... on 10 April, 2000

7. It is further contended that in Second Appeal, as observed in F. M Irani vs. Sardar, 2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 654 only substantial question of law should be entertained and findings of facts must not be interfered as legal lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled in at the stage of the Second Appeal. In other words, illegality would remain as it is. It is contended that legality and validity of membership is subject of the inquiry under Section 22, which is judicial. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted this Court ought not to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs Seshammal on 8 May, 2006

In Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that : "The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision based on no evidence", ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:14:38 ::: 10 sa501.09.odt it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1