Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sayeda Akhtar vs Abdul Ahad on 18 July, 2003
17. As regards non framing of issues, this question becomes
immaterial firstly for the reason because non framing of issues is immaterial
as the parties in this case were alive to their respective pleas raised in their
pleadings. That apart, the appellants have failed to point out as to how non
framing of issues has materially prejudiced their case. The parties
proceeded to trial fully knowing the rival's case and led all the evidence not
only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other
side. In such an eventuality, absence of issues would not be fatal and it
would not be permissible for the party that there has been a mis-trial and
proceedings stood vitiated. (Vide: Nagubai Ammal & others versus
B.Shama Rao & Ors, AIR 1956 SC 593, Nedunuri Kameswaramma
versus Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, Kunju Kesavan versus
M.M. Philip & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 164, Kali Prasad Agarwalla (dead) by
L.R.s & Ors. versus M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC
1530, Sayed Akhtar versus Abdul Ahad , (2003) 7 SCC 52, Bhuwan
::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 23:49:32 :::HCHP
10
Singh versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 2177 and
Kalyan Singh Chouhan versus C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786).
Bhuwan Singh vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr on 5 March, 2009
17. As regards non framing of issues, this question becomes
immaterial firstly for the reason because non framing of issues is immaterial
as the parties in this case were alive to their respective pleas raised in their
pleadings. That apart, the appellants have failed to point out as to how non
framing of issues has materially prejudiced their case. The parties
proceeded to trial fully knowing the rival's case and led all the evidence not
only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other
side. In such an eventuality, absence of issues would not be fatal and it
would not be permissible for the party that there has been a mis-trial and
proceedings stood vitiated. (Vide: Nagubai Ammal & others versus
B.Shama Rao & Ors, AIR 1956 SC 593, Nedunuri Kameswaramma
versus Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, Kunju Kesavan versus
M.M. Philip & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 164, Kali Prasad Agarwalla (dead) by
L.R.s & Ors. versus M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC
1530, Sayed Akhtar versus Abdul Ahad , (2003) 7 SCC 52, Bhuwan
::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 23:49:32 :::HCHP
10
Singh versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 2177 and
Kalyan Singh Chouhan versus C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786).
Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs C.P.Joshi on 24 January, 2011
17. As regards non framing of issues, this question becomes
immaterial firstly for the reason because non framing of issues is immaterial
as the parties in this case were alive to their respective pleas raised in their
pleadings. That apart, the appellants have failed to point out as to how non
framing of issues has materially prejudiced their case. The parties
proceeded to trial fully knowing the rival's case and led all the evidence not
only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other
side. In such an eventuality, absence of issues would not be fatal and it
would not be permissible for the party that there has been a mis-trial and
proceedings stood vitiated. (Vide: Nagubai Ammal & others versus
B.Shama Rao & Ors, AIR 1956 SC 593, Nedunuri Kameswaramma
versus Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, Kunju Kesavan versus
M.M. Philip & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 164, Kali Prasad Agarwalla (dead) by
L.R.s & Ors. versus M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC
1530, Sayed Akhtar versus Abdul Ahad , (2003) 7 SCC 52, Bhuwan
::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 23:49:32 :::HCHP
10
Singh versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 2177 and
Kalyan Singh Chouhan versus C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786).
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Syed Ahmad Badsha Sahib Bahadur on 13 October, 1920
43. It is more than settled that a prior suit would not operate as
res judicata as regards the subsequent suit where the prior suit or
proceedings were not between the same parties as those in the
subsequent suit. (Vide: Secretary of State versus Syed Ahmad Badsha
Sahib Bahadur, AIR 1921 Madras 248 Full Bench, Radha Binode
Mandal versus Sri Sri Gopal Jiu Thakur and others, AIR 1927 PC 128,
Chebrolu Latchayya versus Kucherlapati Venkatapatiraju and others,
AIR 1940 Madras 201, Surajpati and others versus Dy. Director of
Consolidation Allahabad and others, AIR 1981 Allahabad 265 and
Narendra Akash Maharaj Petkar & Anr. versus Shahaji Baburao Petkar
& Ors., AIR 2009 Bombay 165 (DB).
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
17. As regards non framing of issues, this question becomes
immaterial firstly for the reason because non framing of issues is immaterial
as the parties in this case were alive to their respective pleas raised in their
pleadings. That apart, the appellants have failed to point out as to how non
framing of issues has materially prejudiced their case. The parties
proceeded to trial fully knowing the rival's case and led all the evidence not
only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other
side. In such an eventuality, absence of issues would not be fatal and it
would not be permissible for the party that there has been a mis-trial and
proceedings stood vitiated. (Vide: Nagubai Ammal & others versus
B.Shama Rao & Ors, AIR 1956 SC 593, Nedunuri Kameswaramma
versus Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, Kunju Kesavan versus
M.M. Philip & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 164, Kali Prasad Agarwalla (dead) by
L.R.s & Ors. versus M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC
1530, Sayed Akhtar versus Abdul Ahad , (2003) 7 SCC 52, Bhuwan
::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 23:49:32 :::HCHP
10
Singh versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 2177 and
Kalyan Singh Chouhan versus C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786).