Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dhani Devi vs Sant Bihari & Ors on 18 October, 1968
10. In Mst. Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari Sharma and Ors. , the question that came for consideration was under the Motor Vehicles Act. In that case, the applicant for permit died. The question raised was, whether legal representatives could be impleaded, and whether authorities under the Act could impleaded or substitute a person, for which there is no provision. Their Lordships held thus:
Cheru Ouseph vs Kunjipathumma on 13 March, 1981
In Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma 1981 K.L.T. 495, the question that came for consideration was, whether Rent Controller has power to restore an application which was dismissed for default. The Act or Rule did not provide for the same. While considering the question, the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held thus:
Majati Subbarao vs P.K.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) By Lrs on 19 September, 1989
In taking this view, I am supported by the decision reported in Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2187. In that case, their Lordships said that the question of title need not be anterior to the institution of the suit. Eviction can be ordered on the ground of denial of title if it was found to be not bona fide, even in the course of eviction petition. Their Lordships said that even if such a contention is taken in the written statement for the first time, that can be a ground for eviction. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs P. N. Sharma And Another on 9 December, 1964
In the decision reported in (Associated Cement Co. Limited v. P.N. Sharma and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1595 : (1964-65) 27 F.J.R. 204 : (1965) 1 S.C.A. 723 : (1965) 1 Lab. L.J. 428 : (1965) 11 Fac. L.R. 77, their Lordship considered the distinction between a court and a Tribunal. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said decision are relevant for our purpose, and they read thus: