Search Results for "points for determination"

32 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 32 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Lower Appellate Court Failed to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Adequate Reasoning, Remanding Matter for Fresh Disposal.

The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 19/2000 seeking mandatory injunction directing the appellants to demolish a portion of a compound wall con...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal Due to Procedural Error in Not Framing Points for Determination by Lower Appellate Court. Partition Decree Set Aside and Remanded for Fresh Disposal Under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

The case arises from a partition suit (Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 1986) filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the appellant (original...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Matrimonial Dispute — Sets Aside Lower Appellate Court's Decree for Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Reasons Renders Judgment Illegal and Unsustainable.

This Second Appeal arises from a matrimonial dispute between Sunil Ramnath Argade (appellant) and Latabai Sunil Argade (respondent). The appellant cha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Allows Second Appeal in Service Matter Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC — Lower Appellate Court Must Frame Points for Determination Even When Affirming Trial Court Judgment.

The case arises from a Second Appeal filed by the original defendants, Barnes School and Bombay Education Society, against the judgment and order date...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Suit — Concurrent Findings Set Aside Due to Non-Application of Mind by Lower Appellate Court. Failure to Frame Points for Determination Under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC Warrants Remand for Fresh Disposal.

The present second appeal arises from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the original plaintiff (respondent herein) against the original d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Second Appeal Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC — Lower Appellate Court Failed to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Adequate Reasoning. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal.

The present Second Appeal arises from a dispute between the appellants (original plaintiffs) and the respondents (original defendants) concerning prop...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Second Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Sets Aside First Appellate Court's Decree Due to Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Independent Reasoning Renders Appellate Judgment Unsustainable.

The appellant/defendant, Thailammal, was the owner of the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff, Kalaivendan, filed a suit for specific performance ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Second Appeal by Temple Trust in Rent Recovery Suit Against Tenant. First Appellate Court's Reversal Set Aside for Failure to Frame Proper Points and Perverse Findings.

The Plaintiff, Sri Veeraraghavaswamy Devasthanam, represented by its Honorary Agent, filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the Defendan...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Land Encroachment Suit — Remands for Fresh Consideration Due to Failure to Frame Points for Determination. The appellate court's judgment was set aside for non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

The original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by his legal heir) filed a suit for removal of encroachment against defendant nos.1 and 2, claimin...