Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1066 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

Ms Oxygun Health Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Pneumo Care Health Pvt Ltd & Anr on 13 May, 2025

"18. (i) Further the power and authority of the Courts to straightway decree a suit on the basis of averments made in plaint Signature Not Verified RFA(COMM) 271/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 39 of 43 KUMAR Signing Date:16.05.2025 17:34:28 in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of a written statement filed by the defendant is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, titled as, "Balraj Taneja v Sunil Madan"
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Rama Gounder vs Solai Ammal on 22 March, 2019

In the decision in Balraj Taneja and another Vs. Sunil Madan and another (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor the court should proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because the written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the fact set out by the plaintiff in the plaint. The same principle will apply for non-filing of the written statement to the counter claim. In view of the aforesaid decision, in a case where a written statement has not been filed by defendant, the court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. Further the court must see that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been dmitted, whether judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. In this case, the defendants claimed title over the suit property based on the entry made in Ex.B2 (Chitta). As already pointed out that in Ex.B2, the property which was http://www.judis.nic.in 22 already sold by the defendants' father Perumal Gounder also mentioned and under the said circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the said document. Further, admittedly the suit property was a poramboke land and in such a case, when the defendants claimed that a patta has been granted in favour of Perumal Gounder, they should have produced the proceedings issued assigning the said land in favour of Perumal Gounder, but they have not produced any such proceedings. In the absence of any such evidence, merely because in Chitta (Ex.B2), an entry has been made that patta stands in the name of Perumal Gounder does not enure any right in favour of the defendants. Therefore, merely because the plaintiffs failed to file a written statement for the counter claim, the court is not bound to allow the counter claim.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

Mangilal And Anr. vs Medh Kshatriya Swarnkar Samaj Kalyan on 6 April, 2026

"28. What emerges from a reading of Balraj Taneja [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396] , with which we wholeheartedly concur, is that only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved on account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement; but if the plaint itself suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sher Singh vs The Chairman, Ndmc on 23 May, 2025

28. What emerges from a reading of Balraj Taneja [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396] , with which we wholeheartedly concur, is that only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved on account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement; but if the plaint itself suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

M/S Roulunds Codan (India) Ltd vs Sh. Kailash Bharti on 6 February, 2007

In Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan & Anr. (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "If the written statement is not filed, the Court is required to pronounce judgment against the defendant. The words "against him" are to be found in rule 10 of Order 9 which obviously means that the judgment will be pronounced against the defendant. This rule also gives a discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." These words are of immense significance, in as much as they give a discretion to the Court not to pronounce judgment against the defendant and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. The Court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative. This is also the position under Order 8 rule 10 CPC where the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit."
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harishkumar vs City on 16 September, 2008

In Balraj Taneja And Another v. Sunil Madan And Another (supra) relied upon by him in support of this contention, the Supreme Court has held that a judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order which should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts and circumstances and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. It has been held that the process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Sh Vijay Kumar Jain (Since Deseased ... vs Suresh Kumar Jain on 25 July, 2022

In the aforesaid judgment, while considering the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, post amendment by amending Act, 1976 this Court has held as under: (Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan12, SCC p. 408, paras 21-23) "21. There is yet another provision under which it is possible for the court to pronounce judgment on admission. This is contained in Rule 6 of Order 12 which provides as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Tamilselvi vs Ramasamy ... 1St on 10 June, 2025

34. Even in a first appeal, the first Appellate Court is duty bound to examine whether there was continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract. This proposition finds support from Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, and H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa where this Court approved the views taken by the Privy Council in Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon.” From the above it is clear from the explanation that the plaintiff must aver his readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next