Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 201 (2.31 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007

Sahina vs Returning Officer And Ors on 10 May, 2017

In the instant case the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the RC on 26-4-2017 at the stage when in fact final arguments on the election petition were concluded by the EP on 20-4-2017. On analogy of the Apex Court's reasoning in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar (supra) such inordinately delayed application in the court's discretion was to be dismissed and was so rightly by the trial court in the instant case. As an order on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is a discretionary one and does not relate to the defendant's right, the contextual facts are very relevant. It is quite apparent that the RC had no concern with her being pursued in an allegedly frivolous and vexatious proceeding while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He only sought to delay the adjudication of the election petition by a disguised method of adjournment, i.e. moving as if with impunity, a misdirected second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Ande Pentaiah Died vs M. Krishna Reddy on 26 September, 2022

The knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 488] by the High Court. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passages should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. We are of the view that both the trial court as well as the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as stated in the plaint."
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Gromax Agri Equipment Limited vs Hindustan Earthmovers Private Limited on 6 June, 2023

C/CRA/190/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2023 7.7 Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that if the averments of the entire plaint are considered including the cause of action pleaded, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation and barred by any law. It is further submitted that as per the cardinal principle of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this High Court, at the stage of deciding of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, only the averments of the plaints are to be seen and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial court has not committed any error in refusing to reject the plaint at this stage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khader Ali Khan vs Smt.Chirla Nivedita Reddy on 8 August, 2024

28. However, the above rule is seldom applicable to the instant case. A bare perusal of the petition does not demonstrate how Mr. Feroz Khan has no right to sell his undivided share in the property. Whatever the result of the earlier litigation, it is prima facie seen that being purchaser of undivided share, at the worst, the plaintiff is entitled to equities to be worked out in his favour, by application of principles of Partition Act. No where in the petition it is shown that the right of seeking equities by the plaintiff is rejected by the courts in the earlier litigation. Various other citations (Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors 2006 (89) DRJ 494 (DB); Lakshmi & Ors vs. Manickam 2017 SCC Online (Mad) 13583; Md. Noorul Hoda vs. B.B. Raifunnisa & Ors (1996) 7 SCC 767, Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (dead) by LRs vs. Kunhambu Karnavan (2020) 18 SCC 317, are also quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the sameeffect.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P S Sudha - Full Document

Shri Charanjeet Singh & Anr. vs Shri Harvinder Singh & Anr. on 6 July, 2023

13.2. Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors.24, Sri Bishwanath Banik & Anr. vs. Sulanga Bose & Ors.25, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal26, Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors.27 on the proposition that rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only by reading a few lines and passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint, is impermissible;
Delhi High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Pratap Singh And 10 Others vs Kulwant Singh And 61 Others on 7 October, 2025

The knowledge mentioned in the plaint cannot be termed as inadequate and incomplete as observed [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 488] by the High Court. While deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, few lines or passages should not be read in isolation and the pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. We are of the view that both the trial court as well as the High Court failed to advert to the relevant averments as stated in the plaint.'' 7.1. From the aforesaid decision and even otherwise as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next