Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.52 seconds)
Dipak Chandra Ruhi Das vs Pradip Kumar Sarkar And 14 Ors on 3 March, 2021 cites

Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965

(b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 115 of the CPC. The Court is reminded of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of P.D. Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadav & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 153 , wherein it was held that error of lower court in question of law which was not related to question of its jurisdiction, could not have been interfered with and it was held that interference was not justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 200 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959

Similarly, while dealing with the scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 held that the High Court cannot assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law, further holding that the High Court should not interfere where long drawn process of reasoning is required to find out and establish error and it was also held that where there can be two opinions, it can hardly be termed as 'error apparent on the face of record'. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the present application is found wholly without any merit whatsoever. Therefore, for the five reasons as discussed above, there appears to be no reason for referring to the documents produced by the petitioner because the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court as already indicated herein before. Thus, the present revision is dismissed in limine. Resultantly, no interference is called for in respect of the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon in Misc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 568 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next