Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (2.16 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Gafur & Anr vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors on 11 August, 2008

New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Prominent Hotels Limited on 11 September, 2015

11.9. The judgments relied upon by the Licensee, namely, Dhula Bhai v. State of M.P. (supra), Premier Authomobile Ltd. v. Kamlekar Snta Ram Wadke (supra), Raja Ram Bhargva v. Union of Inida (supra), DDA v. Darshan Lal (supra), Shiv Kumar Chaddha v. MCD (supra), Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India (supra), Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand (2008) 10 SCC 97 and Premier Automobiles Limited v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of RFA 78-2014 Page 61 of 156 Bombay (1976) 1 SCC 496 do not help the Licensee. The reasons given by the NDMC in para 8 are accepted.
Delhi High Court Cites 142 - Cited by 11 - J R Midha - Full Document

Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010

"Section 9 of the Code provides that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting the suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. To put it differently, as per Section 9 of the Code, in all types of civil disputes, the civil courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction, expressly or by necessary implication by any statutory provision and conferred on other tribunal or authority. Thus, the law confers on every person an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature of one's choice, at one's peril, howsoever frivolous the claim may be, unless it is barred by a statute." (vide Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand [2008 (10) SCC 97].
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 176 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Branch ... vs Gopal Shriram Panda And Another on 25 March, 2021

9.1. A bare perusal of Section 9 of C.P.C. would indicate that there are no fetters put upon the competence and powers of the Civil Court, to entertain and try all suits and claims of a civil nature. This is succinctly elucidated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Gafur and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 97 , [considering Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393] in the following words :-
Bombay High Court Cites 173 - Cited by 14 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Shri Aditya Gupta vs Smt. Maya on 21 November, 2022

The Supreme Court in case titled Abdul Gafur & Anr. vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 97 has laid down that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint can be filed at any stage and even in a case where parties have adduced evidence, if the court feels that the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds mentioned under the said section, it can do so. The purpose of this interpretation is only to highlight that the court should not be found to be powerless in cutting short the journey of a trial by rejecting the plaint in a given case if the court feels so. On the basis of same analogy Section 151 can be used by the court at any stage of the trial, as it is repository of inherent powers of the court to pass such orders in the interest of justice as the situation may warrant in a given case including the trial of the case".
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Satula Devi vs Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

90. More so, the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand, (2008) 10 SCC 97 and the Division Bench of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH CS (OS) 203/2022 Page 45 of 81 Signing Date:10.04.2023 16:41:07 2023:DHC:2395 this Court in P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Mangal Sain Mittal, 166 (2010) DLT 87, have held that if on a meaningful, not formal reading, the pleading is found to be manifestly vexatious and meritless, not disclosing a right to sue or defend and implausible, the Court should exercise its power and should not allow it to create an illusion and it should not permit it to go to trial.
Delhi High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Neelmani Singh vs Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi & Ors. on 18 April, 2023

35. Furthermore, the position of law with respect to adjudication of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is settled that only the contentions/averments raised in a plaint are to be considered, the objection raised in the written statement and application are immateriale to decide an application filed under the said provision. The Court has to read the plaint in its entirety in order to decide that whether or not a plaint discloses a cause of action and if it does, then such plaint is not liable to rejection by virtue of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The same has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttrakhand, (2008) 10 SCC 97.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India & ... on 11 September, 2023

Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited, (2018) 11 SCC 780; Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 97; Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510; and Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 99]. In the present case, the plaint clearly discloses a cause of action as Plaintiffs seek to enforce their common law rights of passing off and also challenge the non-compliance of the applicable laws including Biosimilar Guidelines by the Defendants while granting approval to Cadila for its purported biosimilar drug.
Delhi High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ultra Home Constructions (P) Ltd. vs Choice Hotels International Inc. & Ors. on 13 January, 2012

This case has recently been adverted to in Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand (2008) 10 SCC 97 where his Lordship D.K. Jain, speaking for the Bench, had recommended that wherever "the High Court is convinced that the plaint read as a whole does not disclose any cause of action, it may reject the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next