Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)Guran Ditta vs T. Ram Ditta on 24 April, 1928
In
Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta, the phrase "substantial question of law" as it
was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since
omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their
Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general
importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case
as between the parties.
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century
Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with
the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju:
Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi vs Rama Krishna Narain And Others on 8 October, 1953
In Dy. Commr., Hardoi v. Rama Krishna Narain also it was held that a
question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of
law entitling the appellant to a certificate under (the then) Section 110 of
the Code.
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1973
Section 109 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
7. Before further going into the questions as to whether the substantial questions
of law on the basis of which the instant appeal was admitted do actually arise or are
involved to the instant Second Appeal, it would be relevant to take note of the
judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Santosh Hazari Vs.
Purushottam Tiwari reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 and more particularly to paragraph
12, 13 and 14 which for the sake of convenience are quoted herein below :--
Section 110 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1