Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Subbiah Pillai Alias S.S.M. Subramania ... vs Sankarapandiam Pillai And Ors. on 18 December, 1947

Mr.K.Santhanam vs Ms.S.Kavitha Through Her Sub.Power on 2 December, 2010

In Subbiah Pillai Vs. Sankarapandiam Pillai, 1948 (I) MLJ 227, a suit was instituted by three brothers, one of whom held a power of attorney from the other two. The defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the power of attorney did not authorise the third plaintiff to institute suits on behalf of the other two. Referring to Order VI, Rule 14, CPC, and to the decisions of the Judicial Committee and the Allahabad High Court, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Mohd Zamiruddin vs Haji Mohsin Qureshi on 27 September, 2024

In Subbiah Pillai v. Sankarapandiam Pillai plaintiff had not signed the plaint. It was held that the omission could be cured and should be CS DJ No. 609577/16 Page No.23/35 corrected in the interests of justice, that the omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as would affect the merits of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court, that if the defect is not discovered until the case comes up for hearing before the appellate Court, the appellate Court may order an amendment to be made in that Court and that the appellate Court ought not to dismiss the suit or interfere with the decree of the lower Court merely because the plaint had not been signed.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Pritama Reddy And G.S. Shirish vs Charminar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. ... on 13 February, 2001

22. Section 2(d) of the Code defines "complaint". According to this definition, complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence. The definition does not specifically say that it should be signed. However, under the Civil Procedure Code, sec. 26, Order 4, Rule 1 and Order 6, Rule 14, say that the plaint shall be presented before the chief ministerial officer of the court and every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader but such a requirement under the provisions was held to be a matter of procedure and any mistake or omission therein can be cured or amended subsequently. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Subbiah Pillai alias S. S. M. Subramania Pillai v. Sankarapandiam Pillai, AIR 1948 Mad 369, that the omission to sign or verify a complaint was not such a defect as could affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. In view of this clear legal position, I am afraid I cannot concur with the view expressed by the Madras High Court (Abdul Kkutoos (M. A.) v. Ganesh and Coy Oil Mills [1999] Crl. LJ 3432 (Mad)). There is no gainsaying that the complainant was present physically before the court. The complaints were signed by his counsel. Therefore, the defect in the complaints for want of signature of the complainant will not, in my considered view, affect the merits of the case if any and such a defect can be cured at a later stage.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Pritama Reddy vs Charminar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. ... on 13 February, 2001

25. Section 2(d) of the Code defines 'complaint'. According to this definition, complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence. The definition does not specifically say that it should be signed. However, under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 26, Order 4 Rule 1, and Order 6 Rule 14, say that the plaint shall be presented before the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader but such a requirement under the provisions was held to be a matter of procedure and any mistake or omission therein can be cured or amended subsequently. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in SUBBIAH PILLAI v. SANKARAPANDYAM PILLAI, A.I.R. 1948 Madras 369 that the omission to sign or verify a complaint was not such a defect as could affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. In view of this clear legal position, I am afraid I cannot concur with the view expressed by the Madras High Court (referred to 6th supra). There is no gainsaying that the complainant was present physically before the Court. The complaints were signed by his counsel. Therefore, the defect in the complaints for want of signature of the complainant will not, in my considered view, affect the merits of the case if any and such a defect can be cured at a later stage. When that is permissible, even when the complaints were re-presented subsequent to the date of limitation since the initial date of presentation is the criterion as was held by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision referred to 7th supra, the complaints in these cases cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.C.S. Rajan And Company vs National Nail Industries And Ors. on 3 April, 1975

That was a case were the plaint was presented by a person purporting to act as agent, but without producing the power of attorney. Later, the power was produced and the contention was that the power not having been filed along with the plaint and as the leave to accept the plaint by the administrative officer or the Judge, as the case may be, is a condition precedent and such leave not having been obtained, there was no proper plaint before the Court. The learned Judge did not accept that contention. A Division Bench of our High Court consisting of Chief Justice Gentle and Yahya Ali, J in Subbiah Pillai v. Sankarapandian Pillai (1948) 1 M.L.J. 227 : 61 L.W. 220 : A.I.R. 1948 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

While we have noted and considered the views expressed by this Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. (supra) and P.S. Sathappan's case (supra), with which we respectfully agree, regarding the primacy of the Original Side Rules framed under the Letters Patent over the provisions of the Code in case of conflict, in the instant case, no such conflict has surfaced which necessitates a reference thereto. Although, Mr. Mitra did urge that matters relating to the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court would be governed by the Original Side Rules, which would prevail over the provisions of the Code, he also accepted the position that a plaint which is presented in the Original Side will have to comply with the requirements of Orders VI and VII as incorporated by way of reference in Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules. What is in controversy is whether a person presenting such plaint after 1st July 2002, would also be required to comply with the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code. In this regard we are inclined to agree with the consistent view of the three Chartered High Courts in the different decisions cited by Mr. Mitra that the requirements of Order VI and Order VII of the Code, being procedural in nature, any omission in respect thereof will not render the plaint invalid and that such defect or omission will not only be curable but will also date back to the presentation of the plaint. We are also of the view that the reference to the provisions of the Code in Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules cannot be interpreted to limit the scope of such reference to only the provisions of the Code as were existing on the date of such incorporation. It was clearly the intention of the High Court when it framed the Original Side Rules that the plaint should be in conformity of the provisions of Order VI and Order VII of the Code. By necessary implication reference will also have to be made to Section 26 and Order IV of the Code which, along with Order VI and Order VII, concerns the institution of suits. We are ad idem with Mr. Pradip Ghosh on this score. The provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of the Code, upon which the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had placed strong reliance, will also have to be read and understood in that context. The expression "duly" used in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of the Code implies that the plaint must be filed in accordance with law. In our view, as has been repeatedly expressed by this Court in various decisions, rules of procedure are made to further the cause of justice and not to prove a hindrance thereto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 81 - A Kabir - Full Document

Shri Inder Pal Singh vs Smt. Kusum Khanna on 15 February, 2012

After considering the previous of case law, in para 17 i.e. Allah Bakhsh and another Vs Municipal Committee of Rohtak, AIR 1926 Lahore 223, Dainish Mercantile Co. Ltd. & Others Vs Beaumount & Another 1991 (1) Ch. D 680, Subhash Pillai @ S.S.M. Ubramania Pillai Vs Sankarapandiam Pillai & others AIR 1948 Madras 369, Dhayabhai Girdhadas Vs Bobaji Dahyaji Kotwal & others AIR 1953 Bombay 28, Nadella Satyanarayana Vs Yamanoori Venkata Subbiah AIR 1957 AP 172, All India Reporter Ltd. Vs Ram Chandra Dhondo Datar AIR 1961 Bombay 292 and Ashok Kumar Daw & others Vs Gobind Chandra Dev & others AIR 1984 Cal. 337, it has been held that even thought initial act is bad, still the same could be remedied by subsequent act of the principal.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next