Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.50 seconds)
Central Bank Of India vs Rajesh Kale And Anr on 4 February, 2026 cites

Central Bank Of India vs Smt. Prabha Jain on 23 January, 2014

17. Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, made an endeavour to distinguish the case of Prabha Jain (Supra), it was urged that the said decision eventually proceeds on the premise that a Plaint cannot be rejected in part, even against one of the Defendants which in view of the judgment in the case of Church of Christ (Supra), is not correct position in law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs Axis Bank Ltd on 1 July, 2019

In the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal Vs Axis Bank (supra), the Notice of Motion filed by Axis Bank, one of the Defendants in the suit, came to be allowed and the suit filed by the appellant therein, was rejected against the Axis Bank by invoking the provisions under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, by the Division Bench of this Court, as being barred by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 68 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 21 August, 2017

"10. We do not deem it necessary to elaborate on all other arguments as we are inclined to accept the objection of the appellant(s) that the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s). In other words, the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. Indeed, the learned Single Judge rejected this objection raised by the appellant(s) by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court. However, we find that the decision of this Court in the case of Sejal Glass Limited (supra) is directly on the point. In that case, an application was filed by the defendant(s) under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC stating that the plaint disclosed no cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 103 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. vs Vck Shares And Stock Broking Services ... on 10 November, 2022

28. It is in this context, the decision in the case of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd (supra), assumes significance. In the said case, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court exposited in clear and explicit terms that, there is no provision in the RDB Act, by which the remedy of a civil suit by the Defendant in a claim by the Bank is ousted, but, it is a matter of choice of that defendant. Such a defendant may file a counter-claim or may be desirous of availing of the more strenuous procedure established under the Code, and that is the choice he takes with the consequences thereof. The three Judge Bench answered the reference on the question of ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the negative, in the following terms :
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 16 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012

9. Lastly, Mr. Sawant would urge that the proposition that a Plaint cannot be rejected in part does not apply to a situation where there is either no cause of action against one of the Defendants or the suit against such Defendants is barred by any law. The binding efficacy of the decision in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs Ponniamman Educational Trust 5 is not diluted by the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court of co- equal Benches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 306 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004

(E) Even in cases where the enforcement of a security interest involves issues as indicated in Mardia Chemicals (supra) of fraud as established within the parameters laid down in A. Ayyasamy (supra); a claim of discharge by a guarantor under Sections 133 and 135 of the Contract Act [Mardia Chemicals (supra)]; a claim of discharge by a guarantor under Sections 139, 142 and 143 of the Contract Act; Marshaling under Section 56 of the Transfer of property Act [J.P. Builders (supra)]; the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 1540 - B Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next