Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.47 seconds)
Koyakkanari Sivadasan vs K.K.Nirmala on 5 April, 2022 cites

Mukri Gopalan vs Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker on 12 July, 1995

13. The issue there was as to the Appellate Court's power to condone delay in filing an appeal by relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Division Bench in order to answer the question took cue from the decisions of the Apex Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker [(1995) 5 SCC 5], Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Irrigation Department [(2008) 7 SCC 169] and M. P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 58] and also the decision of this Court in Ratheesh v. A. M. Chacko and another [2018 (5) KHC 35 : 2018 (4) KLJ 841]. It was held that an Appellate Authority under the Act, being a District Judge, undoubtedly possesses all the required powers under the Code for an effective adjudication of the case. Generally speaking, the appellate power is an extension of the original authority's power. In other words, appellate power is co- extensive to and co-terminus with the original power. The Court concluded that the Appellate Authority under the Act is 11 R.C.Rev.No.56 of 2021 a District Judge with full-fledged powers vested in a District Court to which the entire Code applies. Same analogy applies to this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. Viewed so, provisions of Order LXIII Rule I-A of the Code which enables to challenge non- appealable orders in an appeal against the decree will also get application. Legality of an order under Section 12(1) can be challenged in an appeal or, as the case may be, revision filed against an order under Section 12(3) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 187 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Manik Lal Mazumdar & Ors vs Gouranga Chandra Dey & Ors on 26 February, 2004

21. Accordingly, that question was come to be decided by a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Manik Lal Majumdar and others v. Gouranga Chandra Dey and others [(2005) 5 SCC 400]. The extent and ambit of 'enquiry' that is allowed to ascertain the 'rent admitted by the tenant to be due' in the context of Tripura Buildings (Lease 18 R.C.Rev.No.56 of 2021 and Rent Control) Act, 1975 was considered by the Apex Court and held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 15 - S V Patil - Full Document

Sadique vs Mohammed Umair on 21 December, 2016

The term 'admitted arrears of rent' has fallen for consideration of this Court in Sadique (supra), where it was held that, 16 R.C.Rev.No.56 of 2021 '4. xx xx xx The Court cannot substitute its finding on the arrears of rent in the place of admitted arrears of rent and, if it is allowed, it would fall under the purview of an adjudication under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, which can be done only on a later stage, at the trial of the Rent Control Petition. In other words, it is totally impermissible for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to have an adjudication regarding the arrears of rent, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 12, by conducting an enquiry.'
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - P Somarajan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next