SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(SC) 501

J.C.SHAH, K.S.HEGDE
Murtaza And Sons – Appellant
Versus
Nazir Mohd. Khan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant :Adarsh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:B.S. Salathia, Sr. Advocate and Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate

Judgment

SHAH, J.:- This is an appeal against the orders of the High Court of Mysore setting aside an order passed by the District Court adjudicating Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 insolvents under the Mysore Insolvency Act. The appeal is filed with special leave.

2. This Court has held in Pritam Singh v. State, 1950 SCR 453 at p. 459 "Generally speaking this Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against". It was also said in that case that the view that once an appeal has been admitted by special leave the entire case is at large and that the appellant is free to contest all the findings of fact and raise every point which could be raised in the High Court is wrong. Only those points can be urged at the final hearing of the appeal which are fit to be urged at the preliminary stage when leave to appeal is asked for. This principle was stated, it is true, in a criminal case but it is of as much significance in civil cases an in the trial of criminal appeals. It







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top