In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appellant's petition challenging the lower courts' concurrent finding that a termination order was valid. The court held the finding was based on evidence and not perverse, barring substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.322 of 2005
Shirish Lal, S/o. Shri Madhukar Lal, aged 28 years, CasteChristian, R/o. In front of Durga Talkies, Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava with Mr.Malay Shrivastava and Ms Jyoti Rathore, Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
30/09/2016
2
which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree impugned.
“36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh2 it has been observed that when the Courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the Courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1 (2012) 7 SCC 288
3
9 . Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge
B/-
3 (1999) 3 SCC 573
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of fact by the courts below is perverse or contrary to record.
Whether a substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of the CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath AgrawalExplained¶25
(2012) 7 SCC 288 · Who else cites this
Major Singh Vs. Rattan SinghExplained¶26
(1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 SC 1906 · Who else cites this
Vidhyadhan Vs. ManikraoExplained¶30
(1999) 3 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity BoardExplained¶30
(2007) 14 SCC 138: AIR 2008 SC 956 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shirish Lal
Veslion Board of Education Institution Registration No.22402
Keshav Rao
Manohar Lal
Sanjay K Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
