Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)

Nemichand Gangwal And Anr. vs Harish Kumar Jhanwar on 23 March, 2000

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Judge has fallen into error by granting stay of the suit as the same runs counter to the language used under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Her submission is that Section 10 of the Code contemplates stay of a suit when the matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court and that being not the case, no order of stay should have been passed. It is her further submission that criminal proceeding is not a suit, the concept of stay is not attracted. She has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Sai Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Raipur and Ors. v. Central Bank of India, Raipur, AIR 1998 MP 191, wherein the learned Single Judge has held as under:--
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - D Misra - Full Document

Bhagwat Singh And Anr. vs Ram Prasad And Anr. on 15 November, 2006

6. this Court has considered the judgment of Apex Court referred above in his decision in case of Sai Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Raipur and Ors. v. Central Bank of India, Raipur AIR 1998 MP 191, and held that the Apex Court has not laid down any hard and fast rule and the question whether to stay the suit or not is a question is to be decided. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and in that case as held that it is not necessary for the Court to stay the civil suit.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1