Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company ... vs Sarup Singh And Others on 12 September, 1969
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s D.L.F. Housing
and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup
Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807, has considered the
provisions of Section 115 of CPC as follows:
The Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan ... vs Ajit Prasad Tarway on 5 November, 1971
of
"11. The same view is reiterated in a later decision
of this Court in the case of Managing Director (Mig)
rtHindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway
[(1972) 3 SCC 195] wherein a three-Judge Bench of
this Court speaking through Hegde, J. clearly stated
that the High Court under Section 115 CPC had no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first
appellate court based on facts or even involving any
error of law. It was next observed that it was not the
conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate
court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it
made. The order of the first appellate court may be
right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may
not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear,
that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It was not the
case that the first appellate court exercised its
jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity.
P. Kumarakurubaran vs P. Narayanan on 29 August, 2023
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5622 of 2025, titled as P. Kumarakurubaran vs, P.
.
Ajit Singh & Ors vs Krishan Kumar on 11 October, 2023
In Ajit Singh & others vs. Krishan Kumar, decided
on 18th October, 2023, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as
.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rajeev Bansal vs . Parkash Chand on 11 September, 2023
21. This Court in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2025, titled
Rajeev Bansal vs. Parkash Chand and others, decided on
09.04.2026 has reiterated the scope of interference while dealing
with the case as filed under Section 115 of CPC, which reads as
follows:-
1