Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.33 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912 [Entire Act]
Krishnan vs Backiam & Anr on 11 September, 2007
In Krishnan v. Backiam (2007) 12 SCC 190, it has been
held at paragraph -11 that: (SCC pp. 192-93)
Gurvachan Kaur & Ors vs Salikram (Dead) Through Lrs on 18 March, 2009
In Gurvachan Kaur v. Salikram (2010) 15 SCC 530, at
para 10, this principle has been reiterated: (SCC p. 532)
"10. It is settled law that in exercise of power under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High
Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact
recorded by the first appellate court which is the final
court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse.
Kulwant Kaur & Ors vs Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 21 March, 2001
In Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC
262, this Court has dealt with the limited leeway available
::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2017 22:56:15 :::HCHP
12
to the High Court in second appeal. To quote para 34: (SCC
pp.278 -79)
"34. Admittedly, Section 100 has introduced a
.
S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013
In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602, after
referring to the decisions of this Court, starting with Rajinder
Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635, it
was held at para 30: (S.R.Tewari case 6, SCC p. 615)
"30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be
held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived
at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by
taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible
material. The finding may also be said to be perverse
if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the
finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from
the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on
the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable
evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it,
the order would be perverse. But if there is some
evidence on record which is acceptable and which
could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be
treated as perverse and the findings would not be
interfered with.
Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs Delhi Administration Through ... on 27 September, 1984
In S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602, after
referring to the decisions of this Court, starting with Rajinder
Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635, it
was held at para 30: (S.R.Tewari case 6, SCC p. 615)
"30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be
held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived
at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by
taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible
material. The finding may also be said to be perverse
if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the
finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from
the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on
the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable
evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it,
the order would be perverse. But if there is some
evidence on record which is acceptable and which
could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be
treated as perverse and the findings would not be
interfered with.