Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996

S. Krishnaveni vs D. Rajammal And 5 Ors. on 19 February, 2001

The decision reported in Alijl Momonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Ors., is directly on the point. In that case, the municipality issued notice for demolition of unauthorized building, the tenant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the municipal corporation, the landlord applied to be brought on record and the question was whether the landlord was a necessary and proper party. The Supreme Court held that, "It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he would be bound by the result of action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party."
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Sriman Madhwa Sidhanta Onnahini ... vs Sanjay R. Mohta And Anr. on 25 August, 2000

In the decision in Aliji Momonji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji , the lessee filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation for injunction restraining them from demolishing a portion of the building. The question was whether the landlord is a necessary or proper party. The Supreme Court held that even if no relief is sought for, the presence of a respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute. He would be a proper party. Whereas if in the absence of a person no effective and complete adjudication of the dispute can be made nor relief granted, he would be a necessary party. The landlord, whose direct and substantial interest in the building would be affected, if the Municipal Corporation proceeded with a demolition, was definitely a proper party and in those circumstances the Supreme Court in that case directed the impleading of the landlord. The following passage throws light on what the court should bear in mind in such matters (page 381) :
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Jaydeepsinh Govindsinh Vaghela vs Deputy Engineer, Mgvcl on 2 July, 2021

It is further submitted by referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Ors., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 379, precisely para 5 that the landlord is a necessary and proper party and as such, on the basis of such averments, it has been contended specifically that simply because no relief is sought in this peculiar background of fact, it cannot be said that the applicant is not a necessary party, on the contrary, for effective adjudication of the Special Civil Application, presence of the applicant is very much expedient and filing of the Suit by the Mandal cannot be aground not to conveniently join the applicant by the original petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Ved Mitra Verma vs Dharma Deo Verma And Anr. on 13 October, 2006

In support of his contention, Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of the Apex Court in Aliji Monoji and Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Ors. ; and Vijay Lata Sharma v. Raj Pal and Anr. 2004 AIR SCW 5134. On the other hand, Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the impugned judgment and order and contends that inasmuch as the issue involved in Title Suit No. 25(T) 92, i.e., landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has nothing to do with the dispute of title between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit. In other words, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor is his presence in the suit necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit in question. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for the interference of this Court.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - T Vaiphei - Full Document

Wasudeo Anandrao Deshmukh And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra Through Collector ... on 21 December, 2001

The learned Counsel further submitted that no relief has been claimed against the non applicants No. 2 to 11 in Special Civil Suit No. 514/2000 and their participation in the suit against the desire of the applicants/plaintiffs can at the best be to the extent of restoration of possession after obtaining permission of the trial Court in the light of the proceedings under section 145 of Cri.P.C. having ended abruptly before the Apex Court, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. They have not asserted any right of restoration of possession to them. Therefore, they are not required to be continued in the suit as defendants. The learned Counsel placed reliance on decisions reported in Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji, and Municipal Council, Amaravati v. Govind Vishnu, .
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - P S Brahme - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next