Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (2.69 seconds)
Documents citing M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972

J.M.A. Raju vs Krishnamurthy Bhatt on 12 August, 1975

25. Under these circumstances and in the light of the above discussion, we hold that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhudas v. Bhogilal (AIR 1968 Guj 236) (supra) and, particularly what has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment is in no way modified by the observations of Mathew J., in M, L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SC 2379) (supra). We must make it clear that we are confining our decision only to the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of a decision to admit or not to admit a document in evidence on the ground of sufficiency or otherwise of stamp and in the context of section 35 proviso (a) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - D A Desai - Full Document

Kandasamy vs Santhosssini on 21 October, 2024

23. The view taken by the Madras High Court that the revision is not maintainable at the instance of the defendant arises in a situation post the grant of the order. The judgment of the Supreme Court deals with the situation prior to granting of the order. Hence, I am not in a position to hold that the views of the Madras High Court and that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court are no longer good law in view of Shri M.L.Sethi v. Shri R.P.Kapur, (1972) 2 SCC 427.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shruti Vora vs Sebi on 12 February, 2020

20. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shri M.L. Sethi vs. Shri R.P. Kapur (1972) 2 SCC 427 wherein an observation was made that generally a party is entitled to inspection of all documents which is in the possession of the other party. This proposition of law is not applicable in the instant case, in as much as, the said observation was made by the Supreme Court in the matter of limited discovery of specific documents under Order 11 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such discovery of documents is not required at the preliminary 15 stage in reply to the show cause notice as to why an inquiry should not be initiated.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - T Agarwala - Full Document

Jagadamma vs Unknown on 7 May, 2021

The Supreme Court has clarified in the decision in M.L. Sethy v. R.P. Kapoor (AIR 1972 SC 2379) that an immunity from a litigation unless the requisite court fee is paid by the FAO No.114 of 2020 18 plaintiff is a valuable right for the defendant. When the plaintiff seeks the taking away of that immunity on the scheme provided by O.33 of the Code, is there any jurisdiction for whittling down the requirement set out in O.33 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure? We think not. Under the scheme of O. 33 of the Code, a plaintiff is exempted from paying the Court fee that is payable by any other litigant who comes to court for relief at the time of institution of the suit on the ground that he is not in a position to pay the court fee. If a plaintiff seeks such a special privilege to pursue his litigation, is there any reason not to insist on his strictly complying with the requirement of O.33 of the Code and coming to court with clean hands? According to us, there is no jurisdiction for removing the immunity available to the defendant in a suit and to grant a right to the plaintiff to prosecute the suit without payment of the Court fee unless the plaintiff comes to court with clean hands, making a disclosure of all his assets. The word 'any movable or immovable property' used in O. 33 R. 2 according to us ought to be given its natural meaning and on the scheme of the Code, it is clear that failure to comply with any of the requirements of O. 33 R. 2 or R. 3, should entail the rejection of the permission sought for by a plaintiff.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Hariprasad - Full Document

T.P.Vishnu Kumar vs Canara Bank on 7 November, 2008

19. The Apex Court in M.L.SETHI V. R.P.KAPUR (AIR 1972 SC 2379) in the context of an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC observed that if a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them and as such the party wanting inspection must, therefore, call upon the opposite party to produce the document and held thus:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - K K Sasidharan - Full Document

Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991

In the instant case, the umpire decided matters strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He outstepped the confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the designated area. He diagressed far away from the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the principles state in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission., [1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The Managing Director.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 345 - T K Thommen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next