Practice Areas
Indirect Tax Cases
Direct Tax Cases
Intellectual Property
All Practice Areas
All Courts
Filter by Jurisdiction
All Courts
SC & All High Courts
All Tribunals
+ Allahabad High Court48131
+ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal43963
+ Bombay High Court39893
+ Karnataka High Court39632
+ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission37058
+ Madras High Court34804
+ Kerala High Court32556
+ Delhi High Court21250
+ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission20547
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court20064
+ Patna High Court17564
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court15181
+ Rajasthan High Court14867
+ Central Administrative Tribunal14331
+ Gujarat High Court14276
+ Calcutta High Court14010
+ Telangana High Court11194
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court10627
+ CESTAT10347
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court9540
+ Supreme Court Of India9341
+ Central Information Commission8892
+ Chhattisgarh High Court8227
+ Gauhati High Court6143
+ Debts Recovery Tribunal6059
+ Jharkhand High Court5849
+ SEBI4981
+ Central Electricity Regulatory Commission4861
+ National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission4500
+ National Company Law Tribunal4190
+ Uttarakhand High Court4150
+ National Green Tribunal4149
+ Orissa High Court4041
+ Appellate Tribunal For Electricity2314
+ RERA2228
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court1893
+ Meghalaya High Court1711
+ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal1592
+ Tripura High Court1249
+ Securities Appellate Tribunal815
+ Privy Council707
+ Armed Forces Tribunal672
+ Manipur High Court613
+ Company Law Board539
+ Appellate Tribunal- Prevention Of Money Laundering Act453
+ Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal409
+ Authority for Advance Rulings, GST406
+ Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal398
+ Competition Commission Of India394
+ Sikkim High Court341
+ Intellectual Property Appellate Board282
+ Board of Revenue268
+ Competition Appellate Tribunal223
+ Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange207
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India195
+ National Anti-Profiteering Authority167
+ Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, GST122
+ Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property117
+ Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction90
+ Authority For Advance Rulings71
+ Railway Claims Tribunal46
+ Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board45
+ District Court37
+ Commissioner (Appeals)35
+ Settlement Commission34
+ Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India29
+ Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission29
+ Collector Appeals7
+ Consumer Disputes Redressal6
+ Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property5
+ Trade Marks Registry4
+ Copyright Board3
+ AAR-GST1
+ Board of Revenue, Rajasthan1
+ Central Board of Excise & Customs1
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal0
+ Cyber Appellate Tribunal0
+ Deputy Collector0
+ First Appellate Authority0
+ Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court0
+ Right to Information0
Apply Filter
Court Filter
+ RBI
+ SEBI
+ Andhra Pradesh
+ Arunachal Pradesh
+ Assam
+ Bihar
+ Chandigarh
+ Chhattisgarh
+ Delhi
+ Goa
+ Gujarat
+ Haryana
+ Himachal Pradesh
+ Jharkhand
+ Karnataka
+ Kerala
+ Madhya Pradesh
+ Maharashtra
+ Manipur
+ Meghalaya
+ Mizoram
+ Nagaland
+ Odisha
+ Punjab
+ Rajasthan
+ Sikkim
+ Tamil Nadu
+ Telangana
+ Tripura
+ Uttarakhand
+ Uttar Pradesh
+ West Bengal
+ Supreme Court Of India
+ Allahabad High Court
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court
+ Bombay High Court
+ Calcutta High Court
+ Chhattisgarh High Court
+ Delhi High Court
+ Gauhati High Court
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court
+ Jharkhand High Court
+ Karnataka High Court
+ Kerala High Court
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court
+ Madras High Court
+ Manipur High Court
+ Meghalaya High Court
+ Orissa High Court
+ Patna High Court
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court
+ Rajasthan High Court
+ Sikkim High Court
+ Telangana High Court
+ Tripura High Court
+ Uttarakhand High Court
Apply Filter
Apply Filter
Judge Filter
Filter by Judge (Beta)
Judge Name
Bench
Other Filters
To
2021 Onwards273638
From 2011 To 2020184162
From 2001 To 201029665
From 1991 To 200013316
From 1981 To 19907815
From 1971 To 19805202
From 1961 To 19704943
From 1951 To 19604366
Before 19506839

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

...questioned by the respondents by way of an appeal or by cross-objections and that therefore the said findings could not be attacked by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 22 as amended in 1976. The...appeal or cross-objection in regard to the pecuniary damages in B and C Schedules could be permitted to rely on Order 41 Rule 22 CPC (as amended in 1976) and to contend that the findings relating to malice...A Schedule were concerned, on that basis.(2) Whether in case the respondents are held entitled to attack the said adverse findings under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, the said...

...A.K Ganguly, J.— Interesting questions involving interpretation of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter “CPC”) fall for decision in this case in which the...received. On 19-11-2002, the appellants filed cross-objections before the High Court under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, along with an application for condonation of delay of 404 days in filing the cross...points came up for consideration before the High Court:(i) Whether the limitation period of one month prescribed under Order 41 Rule 22(1) CPC shall run from 12-9...

...R.B Misra, J.— These eight appeals by special leave raise a common question of law regarding the scope of Order 41 Rule 22 and Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil...challenge the order of the Commissioner but the High Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of the Commissioner on the basis of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22...., was raised before the High Court in the writ petition as well. The High Court, however, repelled the contention by applying the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22. Reliance has also been placed by the State...

...Mohan. The counsel also urged that in any event, the cross-objection ought to have been considered if not under Order 41 Rule 22 but (sic then) under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC. Mr Rohta...from the provisions of Rule 22 of Order 41 CPC. That is as plain as plain can be. The High Court was clearly in error in holding to the contrary.11. The next question for...consideration is whether the cross-objection was maintainable against Madan Mohan, the co-respondent, and if not, whether the court could call into aid Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. For appreciating the contention it will be useful...

...exercises its civil jurisdiction. It is true that the rules framed by this Court in exercise of its rule-making powers do not contain any provision analogous to Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil...absence of an express provision like Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure it can devise the appropriate procedure to be adopted at the hearing. There could be no better way of supplying the...decide all the points arising from the judgment appealed against and even in the absence of an express provision like Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can devise appropriate...

...think it proper to do so as the plaintiff could have asked for this relief by filing a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C but has not done so”. The logic behind this seems to be that the cross-objection under 0.41...be filed only within the time as indicated therein and if a respondent who could have filed a cross-objection did not do so, is given relief under Order 41 Rule 33, Order 4l Rule 22 is...Order 41 Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, have challenged the trial court's decree in so far as it dismissed the suit against the defendants other than the State. We are not, at present advised, prepared to...

...framing Order 41-A., and Form 6-A. fixing time for appearance, Civil P.C. Order 41, Rule 22, seems to have been overlooked. Order 41,...complied with. There is no rule saying that the day fixed for appearance shall be regarded as the day fixed for hearing within' the meaning of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil...fixed for hearing. Either Order 41, Rule 22 must itself be modified by the High Court, or some other rule must be made to provide for its working. 3. We are...

...that they were entitled to do so by reason of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22. The appeal came on for hearing before Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., who considered...Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, it is open to a defendant-respondent who has not taken any cross-objections to the partial.... 189 : I.L.R. 50 Mad. 866 went too far and that on a proper construction of Order 41, Rule 22(1), the defendants should have been allowed to challenge...

...-10-2001, if barred by time and hence not maintainable as an appeal, could still be treated as a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC which having been filed within the prescribed period of...maintainability of cross-objections in an appeal preferred under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?13. Sections 39 and 41 of the Act and Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of...be vested in an arbitrator or umpire for making orders with respect to any of such matters.”Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code...

...notice of appeal was served on the respondent, he filed cross-objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment of the Principal Subordinate..., however, says that since the provisions of the Code are applicable to the appeal filed under Section 39 of the Act, cross-objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 is maintainable. Sections 39 and 41 of the...Act and the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code are as under:Arbitration Act“39. Appealable orders.—(1) An appeal shall lie from the...

...to state why the decree of the Reference Court should not be sustained by relying upon Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure." * After notice, we...behalf of the appellants. In view of this, the High Court was not right in not permitting the appellant to raise the point, in view of Order 41 Rule 22. The...

...not maintainable under Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. In this connection reference may be made to Pannalal v. State of...have been pleased to lay down that Order 41, Rule 22 permits, as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only against the appellant and it is only in...be granted without the question being reopened between the objecting respondent and other respondents that an objection under Order 41, Rule 22 can be directed against the...

...in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and the scope of power conferred on the appellate court under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC...prefer cross-objection without which decree under appeal cannot be altered or varied to the advantage of the respondent and/or to the disadvantage of the appellant. Rule 22 of Order 41, as amended by...:Order 41 Rule 22Text as amended by Act 104 of 1976 (w.e.f 1-2-1977) Text pre-amendment “22....

...of delay.2. Appearing for the Cross-Objectors Sri Kalagi, learned Counsel, drawing our attention to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22(1) CPC would contend...that since this Court after admitting M.F.A No. 3279 of 2001 on 12.09.2001 has not yet fixed the date of hearing and, therefore, the limitation prescribed under Order 41 Rule 22(1...prescribed under Order 41 Rule 22(1) CPC began to run from 12.09.2001, even then, the cross objectors have offered satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the cross...

...137 of 2007. The petitioners took out an application seeking extension of time to file cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 and the said application was dismissed. The said...Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC provides the court below to extend the time for filing cross objection/cross appeal. Therefore, the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside and...on behalf of the petitioners. As per Order 41 Rule 22, time limit for filing cross appeal is one month from the date of service of the notice or from the date of first...

...above decision, it was ruled that this Court has power to decide all the points arising from the judgment appealed against and even in the absence of an express provision like Order 41 Rule 22 of the...:“It is true that the Rules framed by this Court in exercise of its rule-making powers do not contain any provision analogous to Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil...absence of an express provision like Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure it can devise the appropriate procedure to be adopted at the hearing. There could be no better way of supplying...

...limitation, the petitioners relied upon the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. prescribing 30 days limitation for filing cross objections commencing from the date of...service of notices upon the respondent The court over ruled the plea of the petitioners observing that Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. cannot apply to the cross objections under...cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. and cross objections under Section 22-A of the...

...Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C). Learned lower Appellate Court has dismissed the cross-objections as time barred.Learned counsel...filing of the cross-objections. It is pointed out that under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C, cross-objections may be preferred within one month from the date of service on the cross...filed on 05.11.2008 i.e within prescribed period of one month as stipulated in Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C Article 116(b) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act was erroneously...

...Court found that the earlier Division Bench has not considered the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC which enables the cross objector to take grounds which could have...driver was not having a valid driving licence. The claimants respondents 1-3 after notice have filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C seeking enhancement...provisions of Rule 256 of the M.V Rules read with Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C The learned Counsel relied on the decisions in United India Insurance Co. v. V. Balasubramanyam...

...before taking up the disposal of the cross-objection on merits and the appellant's prayer for dismissal of the appeal.2. Under Order 41 Rule 22(1) a cross...Order 41 Rule 22(1) being the notice described in item 6 of Appendix ‘G’ to the Civil Procedure Code was not served upon the respondent. It is urged, therefore, from the side of the...that since she did not file her cross-objection within a month from that date her cross-objection should be held to be barred by limitation under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22(1...