Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Section 115 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S. Chellappan And Ors on 19 September, 2000
In A.Venkitasubbiah Naidu v.
S.Chellappan & others {2000(7) SCC 695}, the Apex
Court has pointed out the time tested principle
to be followed so far as the exercise of the
constitutional remedy under Article 226/227
when alternate remedies are available to the
parties. It has been stated thus:
Punjab National Bank vs O.C. Krishnan And Ors on 13 August, 2001
In the other two
decisions referred to by the counsel, Punjab
National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others 2001(6)
SCC 569} and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & ors. v.
State of Maharashtra and ors. {2011(2) SCC 782},
both of them arose from orders passed under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, which were impeachable by way of appeal
provided under that statute before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal. In that context, analysing the
O.P(C).No.570 of 2012-O
:: 24 ::
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
In what type of cases
such exercise is permissible no doubt has to be
examined with reference to the general
guidelines and time tested principles as
enunciated in Surya Dev Rai's case referred to
above.
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
challenge by an insurer against the awarding of
compensation in a claim raised under the Motor
Vehicles Act. Taking note of the defences which
could be canvassed by the insurer and the right of
statutory appeal to challenge the award in that
case, it was held that the petition filed by the
insurer under Article 226 of the Constitution was
not entertainable. While pointing out that remedy
by way of a statutory appeal was available to the
insurer barring its right to invoke the
constitutional remedy under Article 226/227 to
impeach the award, it was observed that where the
statute does not bar exercise of revisional
jurisdiction against the judgment of the District
Judge, the remedy available to a litigant is by a
revision under Section 115 of the Code. The Apex
Court then continued to observe thus: