Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Bant Singh vs Noble Trade Cone Pvt. Ltd. And Others on 4 October, 2013

Mohit Kumar And Ors vs Bharat Singh And Ors on 7 April, 2016

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the court below has rightly decided the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the petitioners had infact filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.1.2008, though merely because of jugglery of words, petitioner sought decree for declaration just to avoid the payment of court fee. The same is not permissible as per law. On these facts, the present case is distinguishable from the case of Bant Singh v. Noble Trade Cone Pvt. Ltd. and Others (supra). For all intents and purposes, the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale was sought and the Court below has rightly directed the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2016 00:05:08 ::: Civil Revision No. 5906 of 2015 3 petitioners to affix the court fee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S Dhawan - Full Document

Kulwinder Singh & Anr vs Saurabh Singh & Ors on 4 December, 2019

"4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has rightly decided the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC because the petitioners had in fact filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.01.2008, though merely because of jugglery of words, petitioner sought decree for declaration just to avoid the payment of court fee. The same is not 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 06:29:47 ::: CR-4192-2018(O&M) -8- permissible as per law. On these facts, the present case is distinguishable from the case of Bant Singh vs Noble Trade Cone Pvt.Ltd.and others (supra). For all intents and purposes, the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale was sought and the Court below has rightly directed the petitioners to affix the Court fee."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inder Mongia vs Neelam Malhotra on 15 November, 2025

"Having considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has rightly decided the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the petitioner had infact filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.01.2008, though merely because of jugglery of words, petitioner sought decree for declaration just to avoid the payment of Court fees. The same is not permissible as per law. On these facts, the present case is distinguishable from the case of Bant Singh vs. Noble Trade Con Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2014) (1) PLR 713. For all intents and purposes, the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale was sought and the Court below has rightly directed the 2 of 3 petitioners to fix the Court fees".
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rameshwati vs Jeet Ram And Ors on 18 October, 2016

4. The legal position is well settled that in order to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court will only look into the contents of the plaint. At that stage, the pleas raised by defendants in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and matter is to be decided only on the basis of averments in the plaint. Reference can be made to cases Bant Singh v. Noble Trade Cone Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (1) P.L.R 713 and The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2016 13:51:25 ::: CR No.6897 of 2016 (O&M) 3 Chairperson/Managing Trustee 2012 (3) R.C.R (Civil) 811 (S.C).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1