Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (0.65 seconds)

Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

In the case of Gangotri Enterprises Ltd (supra) the Apex Court noted the decisions in Raman Iron Foundary (supra) and Iron and Hardware (India) Co., (supra) which held that the Court must decide that the defendant is liable and then proceed to assess what that liability is and that a claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 380 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

56. The decision in Wander Ltd v. Antox India P. Ltd (supra) which is a landmark decision, enunciates the scope of interference by the Revisional Court in the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance that the Revisional Court will not substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. The Apex Court has held that if the view taken by the Court below was reasonably possible on the material, the Revisional Court will not re-assess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Iron & Hardware (India) Co. vs Firm Shamlal & Bros. on 14 January, 1954

In the case of Gangotri Enterprises Ltd (supra) the Apex Court noted the decisions in Raman Iron Foundary (supra) and Iron and Hardware (India) Co., (supra) which held that the Court must decide that the defendant is liable and then proceed to assess what that liability is and that a claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 77 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Bhartiben Shah vs Smt.Gracy Thomas And Others on 21 January, 2013

54. As regards the maintainability of revision application, Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bharatiben Shah vs Gracy Thomas (supra) in answer to the reference to determine the scope of the power of revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the Rent Act") and whether the procedural order under CPC would be amenable to the revision under Section 34(4) of the Rent Act in suit arising out of the Rent Act held that the revision under Section 34 (4) the Rent Act is not maintainable in respect of procedural order passed under Code of Patil-SR 50 of 59 wp 840-22.doc Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, if such order does not affect the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties under the Rent Act or any other substantive law. In the present case, the trial Court has rejected the application for deposit of arrears of license fees. The relief of deposit sought by the landlord amounts to securing the arrears of rent or license, which according to him, had become due and payable due to continuous use and occupation of the licensee of the licensed premises. By refusing the relief, substantive right of the landlord has been affected and the same cannot be termed as a procedural order. In my view, the rejection of application seeking deposit of arrears affected the substantive rights and, as such, revision is maintainable against the said order.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 23 - M S Shah - Full Document

M/S Gangotri Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 May, 2016

In the case of Gangotri Enterprises Ltd (supra) the Apex Court noted the decisions in Raman Iron Foundary (supra) and Iron and Hardware (India) Co., (supra) which held that the Court must decide that the defendant is liable and then proceed to assess what that liability is and that a claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 93 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next