Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Mayar (Hk) Limited And Anr. vs Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 18 July, 2003

Teh Chief Executive Officer vs Chand Pasha @ Rafiulla Shariff on 12 October, 2018

In cases where defendant seeks for rejection of the plaint by invoking clause (d) of Rule 11, particular law which bars such suit has to be stated by the applicant. In fact, such averments should 22 be found in the application itself and where the applicant fails to specify the law, which bars such suit, plaint cannot be rejected. While examining an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, scrutiny of averments made in the plaint is true or untrue would not be an issue which can be subject matter of scrutiny. For the proposition that plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegation made by the defendant in its written statement, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of MAYOR (HK) LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs OWNERS AND PARTY VESSEL reported in AIR 2006 SC 1828 can be looked up. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KAMALA & OTHERS vs K.T. ESHWARA SA & OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 3174 has held that different clauses in Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC should not be mixed up while seeking rejection of the plaint. It has been held that for invoking Rule 11(d), no evidence can 23 be looked into and at that stage, issues of merit of matter would not be in the realm of the court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Impresario Entertainment And ... vs M/S. Orangebelly Food And Beverages ... on 22 February, 2023

15. The afore-extracted assertions in para 53 of the plaint, submits Mr. Lall, is suffice to treat the Delhi office of the plaintiff as its principal office. In any event, he submits that this issue would be a matter of trial. He relies, for this purpose, on paras 31 and 32 of the report in Mayer (HK) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express3, which read thus:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Spices Valley Estate Ltd., Rep. By Its ... vs Tc Forexpress Ltd., (Formerly Known As ... on 1 February, 2007

30. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Maya (HK) Ltd., v. Owner and Parties Vessel MV Fortune Express wherein it is clearly laid down that so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which require determination by the Court, the mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the Plaint. In the present case, there is a clear disclosure of the fact that the cause of action arises only in Chennai. In the above case it is also laid down that for ousting jurisdiction of the court the entire plaint has to be read, and when there are pleadings regarding misrepresentation, fraud, willful default, undue influence, material facts have to be gone into and this can be adjudicated only in a civil court.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - S A Kumar - Full Document

Socar Turkey Petrol Enerji Dagitim San ... vs Mv Amoy Fortune (Imo 9583639) on 4 June, 2018

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mayer (HK) (Supra) has in terms held that only material facts needs to be stated under order 6 rule 2 of CPC. Plaintiff have pleaded all the material facts and therefore the judgment of the English Court which would be based on their rules of pleading can have no bearing on facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K R Shriram - Full Document
1   2 Next