Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.82 seconds)
Documents citing Thomas vs Manager, Bishop Moore College on 10 March, 1987

Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas Vs. Moore (supra) in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 136 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Klj Plasticizers Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kohler vs Atul on 8 March, 2010

Of course, their Lordshps were speaking in the context of sec.99 of the code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R R Tripathi - Full Document

Sandeep Goyal vs A One Traders on 8 October, 2024

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the abovequoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Klj Plasticizers Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Klj Resources Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Klj Resources Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Klj Resources Limited vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 30 July, 2025

Of course, their Lordships were speaking in the context of Section 99 of the Code. Their Lordships referred to the above quoted observation of the Court of Appeal in Thomas v. Moore [(1918) 1 KB 555 : 87 LKB 577 (CA)] in that decision. It is therefore clear that a suit that may be bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not one that could be got struck out or rejected by a defendant as a matter of right and the discretion vests with the court either to proceed with the suit or to direct the plaintiff to take steps to rectify the defect. In fact, the Privy Council in that case noticed that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It further noticed that the trial Judge had in spite of the complications created thereby, tried and disposed of the suit satisfactorily. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action at the appellate stage.
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next