Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.03 seconds)
Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Gujarat Akruti Tcg Bio-Tech Limited on 18 October, 2022 cites

Mooman Jafferali Aliji Maknojiya vs Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj on 5 October, 2021

[4.5] In support of his submission, he has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mooman Jafferali Aliji Maknojiya Vs. Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj reported in AIROnline 2021 Guj 2027 to submit that pending hearing delay application passing of an interim order or continuing the same is not unknown to the law. Referring to paragraph 81 therein, it is submitted that while issuing rule in the delay condonation application as also leave to appeal, Court granted /continued the ad-interim protection, which was granted earlier.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Link ... vs Jet Airways Thozhilalar Sangam ... on 21 June, 2000

Referring to the powers of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the respondent relied on decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Chennai Vs. Jet Airways Thozhilaiar Sangam (represented by its Secretary) and Ors. reported in 2000 (4) LLN 261 as also of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi reported (1995) 6 SCC 576 as also decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagwan s/o Ganpatrao Godsay Vs. Kachrulal s/o Bastimal Samdariya rendered in 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 32. referring paragraph 41 as also 50 submitted that even Rule 3A of Order XLI of 'the Code' despite using word 'shall' has been interpreted to be directory and permissive with a further submission that if right of Appeal is part of a special enactment intended to serve the special cases arise under that Act, there is a basic rule of interpretation that general legislation must give way to special legislation. It is further submitted, relying on the decision that since special legislation in the form of 'GPP Act' does not create the prohibition similar to the one contained in Order XLI Rule 3A of 'the Code' such prohibition has no application to the cases under the 'GPP Page 18 of 33 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 20 20:22:45 IST 2022 C/SCA/20198/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/10/2022 Act'. At any rate, according to his submission, use of word 'shall' in Rule 3A of Order XLI of the 'the Code' is permissive and not mandatory as held by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, according to his submission, despite learned advocate for the petitioners did not refer to Order XLI Rule 3A of 'the Code', which prohibits though apparently grant of an order of stay of execution of a decree against which the Appeal is proposed to be filed so long as delay condonation application is pending is of no use for the reason that is not held to be mandatory by the Bombay High Court as also it cannot be invoked while exercising jurisdiction of Appeal under the special enactment like the 'GPP Act'.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani And Anr vs Pratapsing. Mohansingh Pardeshi ... on 18 September, 1995

Referring to the powers of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the respondent relied on decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Chennai Vs. Jet Airways Thozhilaiar Sangam (represented by its Secretary) and Ors. reported in 2000 (4) LLN 261 as also of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi reported (1995) 6 SCC 576 as also decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagwan s/o Ganpatrao Godsay Vs. Kachrulal s/o Bastimal Samdariya rendered in 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 32. referring paragraph 41 as also 50 submitted that even Rule 3A of Order XLI of 'the Code' despite using word 'shall' has been interpreted to be directory and permissive with a further submission that if right of Appeal is part of a special enactment intended to serve the special cases arise under that Act, there is a basic rule of interpretation that general legislation must give way to special legislation. It is further submitted, relying on the decision that since special legislation in the form of 'GPP Act' does not create the prohibition similar to the one contained in Order XLI Rule 3A of 'the Code' such prohibition has no application to the cases under the 'GPP Page 18 of 33 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 20 20:22:45 IST 2022 C/SCA/20198/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/10/2022 Act'. At any rate, according to his submission, use of word 'shall' in Rule 3A of Order XLI of the 'the Code' is permissive and not mandatory as held by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, according to his submission, despite learned advocate for the petitioners did not refer to Order XLI Rule 3A of 'the Code', which prohibits though apparently grant of an order of stay of execution of a decree against which the Appeal is proposed to be filed so long as delay condonation application is pending is of no use for the reason that is not held to be mandatory by the Bombay High Court as also it cannot be invoked while exercising jurisdiction of Appeal under the special enactment like the 'GPP Act'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 239 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next