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

1995 Supreme(Kar) 570

H.N.TILHARI
B. S. BALAJI – Appellant
Versus
T. GOVINDARAJU – Respondent


Advocates:
G.PAPI REDDY, K.L.MANJUNATH

Judgement Key Points

What is the meaning of the expression "case decided" under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964? What does the phrase "according to law" mean in the context of Small Causes Court proceedings and the revision powers under Section 18? What are the rights of a party to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses in Small Causes Court proceedings, and when can an order be considered "not in accordance with law" for revision?

What is the meaning of the expression "case decided" under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964?

What does the phrase "according to law" mean in the context of Small Causes Court proceedings and the revision powers under Section 18?

What are the rights of a party to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses in Small Causes Court proceedings, and when can an order be considered "not in accordance with law" for revision?


H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 18 of Karnataka Small causes Court's Act, 1964 though wrongly, it has been mentioned to be under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision arises from the order dated 6-9-1995 passed by Sri B. M. Angadi, Additional Judge, Small Causes, Bangalore City in small Causes Suit No. 2949 of 1990 rejecting the applicant's application under Section 151 for being permitted to examine d. W. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 23,275/- alleging that the same had been borrowed by the first defendant in his capacity as the partner of the Maruti Trading Company. The defendant 2 filed a written statement challenging the plaintiff's case and taking the plea that the first defendant could not borrow money in the name of the firm without the consent of other partner and no consent of defendant 2 had ever been taken. The defendant 1 admitted the borrowing of the money as alleged in the plaint but he alleged that he borrowed the money for and on behalf of the company. The defendant 2 in such circumstances applied for permission to cross-examine the defendant 1 who had appeared in











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