Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing State Bank Of India vs Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 22 November, 2013

Radhe Krishna Products - A Partnership ... vs Parshottambhai Dharamshibhai ... on 28 August, 2014

Private Limited, State Bank of India vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) as well as in case of N.V. Srinivass Murthy (supra) are concerned, the Hon'ble Court, in the said decisions, considered the matters in light of Order 2 Rule 2. The said provision would come in picture when the cause of action in both the suits is common. In present case, the subject-matter and cause of action in 76 C/SCA/410/2014 CAV JUDGMENT the said two suits are different. In this view of the matter, the decisions do not help the petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision dated 10.10.2013 in Appeal from Order No.154 of 2013. It is a decision in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r), wherein order below application for interim relief, whereby the learned trial Court had, in exercise of power under Order 39 Rule 1, granted interim relief against the defendants, was challenged. Moreover, in the said decision, the subject-matter in both the suits was use of trademark 'Dandi Namak / Dandi Salt' and both the suits, i.e. subsequent suit, wherein the impugned order under Order 39 was passed and the previous suit which came to be withdrawn, were related to and in connection with the use of the same (i.e. above-mentioned) trademark. Besides this, in the said decision, the Court reached to specific conclusion and finding that the plaintiff had furnished false declaration and both the suits were based on same cause of action and the case suffered from suppression of material facts and the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands. Thus, the said 77 C/SCA/410/2014 CAV JUDGMENT decision also does not render any assistance to the petitioners in light of the facts of second suit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - K M Thaker - Full Document

M/S. Essar Enterprises vs Vinayak Ashish Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. And ... on 9 June, 2025

16. To buttress these submissions, Mr. Chamboowala placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali1, Manratna Developers, Mumbai Vs. Megh Ratan Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai 2, State Bank of India Vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Limited 3 and decision of the Privy Council in the case of Mohammad Khalil Khan Vs. Mehbub Ali Main4.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Deceased Rajendrasinh Harbhamji ... vs Deceased Mansukhlal Premchand Mehta'S ... on 14 October, 2014

Vs.   Ramesh   Exports   Private   Limited   (supra),   is     a   judgment  reiterating the principles of law enunciated by  the   Supreme  Court  regarding   Order   2  Rule   2  of  the Code, wherein, it was held, on facts, that  the cause of action on which the two suits were  based were the same, as were the parties, and in  the absence of any explanation of the plaintiff  as to why the reliefs claimed in the subsequent  suit had not been claimed in the previous suit,  the   subsequent   suit   was   barred   under   Rule   2  Order 2 of the Code.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Mena Energy Dmcc vs Mt Queen Helena ( Imo No 9341354 ) on 27 December, 2018

The fact situation considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) was on the premise that the cause of action is the same. Therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable to the present case. Similarly, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virgo Industries (Eng.)
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Santosh vs Lamber Road & Infrustructure & Ors. on 15 January, 2015

Being guided by the above discussed legal proposition, it would be clear that Order 2 rule 2 CPC would be attracted if subsequent suit is based on the substantially same facts and cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed. Reading the plaint of earlier suit filed by plaintiff being suit no.100/13, it would be clear that even in that case also plaintiff had challenged the purported sale of land in question and therefore, she raised the objection regarding issuance of NOC from the Revenue Authorities however, Revenue Authorities when 5 issued the NOC, that issuance of NOC was challenged in that suit. It would be clear from reading the para 9 of that plaint that plaintiff was well aware regarding sale of land in question on 01.01.2013 and was also aware about the execution of sale deed which has been challenged in the present suit. However, plaintiff while filling the earlier suit did not challenge the sale deed which she has been challenged in the present suit. Apparently, there has been unity of cause of action and prayer in the present suit could have also been made in the earlier suit. Plaintiff has failed to make prayer regarding declaration the sale deed to be null and void, in that suit to my mind is debarred by provisions of Order 2 rule 2 CPC to file subsequent suit. Moreover, it is also important to note that admittedly plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration in respect of sale deed which is of sale consideration of Rs.3,54,12000/­ apparently, in the simple declaration suit has been filed still for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction I do not find that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Thus for the reasons discussed above, I find that suit of the plaintiff is barred in law and therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected. Consequently, application of the defendant no.2 under Order 7 rule 11 CPC stands allowed. File be consigned to record room.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next