Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Vineetha Thomas vs Wg.Crd.Dr. Pramod Kumar Tyagi on 18 December, 2023 cites

Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003

"45. It is not correct to contend that even if the revisional jurisdiction is not available, a remedy in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 21 would also not be available in law. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rap opining that not only the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of its jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; even a writ of certiorari can be issued wherefor the subordinate or inferior courts would be amenable to the superior courts exercising power of judicial review in terms of Article 226 thereof."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 3621 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

B.P. Achala Anand vs S. Appi Reddy & Anr on 11 February, 2005

In terms of B.P.ACHALA ANAND case (supra) a deserted wife also could claim as tenant being deserted wife of tenant. Where it is alleged that the suit document i.e., Lease Agreement dated 30.03.2011 is a concocted document; when it is contended that the rent is to be paid on or before 7th of every month or January month becomes due in next month i.e., February, are all matters for trial. The cause of action as held by trial Court is not illusory as held by the trial court. When suit is filed based on the lease/rental agreement dated 30.03.2011, the suit needs trial, including question raised by defendant No.2 with regard to validity of agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 112 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal on 19 April, 2017

18. It is well settled legal position, that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court shall look into only averments contained in the plaint and shall examine to find out whether the plaint averments would disclose cause of action. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 32 MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY v/s SYED JALAL reported in (2017)13 SCC 174 has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 158 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

(5) 2021 (2) KCCR 1309 (Smt.Kaisar Jehan V/S Abdul Wajid Ali) 37 (22.1) In T.ARIVANDAM (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed while considering Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, held that the trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004

(22.3) In Sopan Sukhdeo case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Order VII Rule 11 of CPC lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. And further it observed that while dealing with the said application, the question to be examined is whether real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1