Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)
Bhakti Hari Nayak And Ors. vs Vidyawati Gupta, S.C. Agarwala (Huf) ... on 9 June, 2004 cites

Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 25 October, 2002

In so far as the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India, , is concerned this Court finds that in paragraph 16, the learned Judges have observed that for non-compliance with the provisions of Order 7 and Clauses (e) and (f) of Rule 11 and Rule 9 there should not be an automatic rejection of the plaint at the first instance. The learned Judges held that in cases of such non-compliance, the Court should ordinarily give an opportunity for rectifying the defects and if the same is not done then the Court will have the liberty or the right to reject the plaint. (Paragraph 16, page 193 of the report)
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - Full Document

Shaw & Co. vs B. Shamaldas & Co. on 23 December, 1953

In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shaw & Co. v. B. Shamaldas & Co., . The question which arose in that case was that whether Order 9 Rule 5 of the Code will apply to the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judge found that since the Order 9 Rule 5 of the Code has not been excluded from its application to the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court under Order 49 Rule 3, the same will apply. In that case, as in the present case, the question of waiver was argued and the learned Judge found that no written statement was filed by the defendant after entering appearance. In this case also no such written statement has been filed and this point, which is taken before this Court, is a pure question of law as pointed out above. Therefore, there is no question of waiver. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. In the instant case, there is no intentional relinquishment of its right by the appellant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Secy. Of State vs Hindusthan Co-Operative Insurance ... on 18 August, 1931

56. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the ratio in Hindusthan (supra) and Ram Sarup (supra) about interpretation to a legislation by reference must be understood in the context of the interrelationship between the two statutes as has been laid down in Narashimhan and following the said ratio this Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between Chapter VII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and the amendment made to Order 6 of the Code by the amending Act. The Original Side Rules, as quoted above, says that the plaint shall comply with Order 6 of the Code. This would obviously mean that the plaint should comply with Order 6 of the Code as amended from time to time. The contrary interpretation suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondent that all amendments to the Code by a sovereign legislative body with plenary power shall stand frozen unless the Original Side Rules are amended, cannot be accepted by this Court for the reasons indicated above. This Court, therefore, does not discern any conflict between the Original Side Rules and the amendment brought about by the amendment Act in question.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

Ram Sarup vs Munshi And Others(And Connected ... on 30 August, 1962

56. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the ratio in Hindusthan (supra) and Ram Sarup (supra) about interpretation to a legislation by reference must be understood in the context of the interrelationship between the two statutes as has been laid down in Narashimhan and following the said ratio this Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between Chapter VII Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and the amendment made to Order 6 of the Code by the amending Act. The Original Side Rules, as quoted above, says that the plaint shall comply with Order 6 of the Code. This would obviously mean that the plaint should comply with Order 6 of the Code as amended from time to time. The contrary interpretation suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondent that all amendments to the Code by a sovereign legislative body with plenary power shall stand frozen unless the Original Side Rules are amended, cannot be accepted by this Court for the reasons indicated above. This Court, therefore, does not discern any conflict between the Original Side Rules and the amendment brought about by the amendment Act in question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 175 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Subbiah Pillai Alias S.S.M. Subramania ... vs Sankarapandiam Pillai And Ors. on 18 December, 1947

In support of such contention, the learned Counsel cited the decision in the case of Subbiah Pillai v. Shankarapandiam Pillai, reported in AIR 1948 Madras 369. In that case the plaint was not signed but the same was filed with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The learned Judges held that the same was merely an irregularity and its amendment should be allowed even by the Appellate Court and on that ground alone the jurisdiction of the Court is not affected and the suit ought not to be dismissed by the Appellate Court or the decree which has been passed by the lower Court ought not to be interfered with merely because the plaint has not been signed.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Hirabai Gendalal vs Bhagirath Ramchandra And Company on 6 October, 1944

58. The next decision was rendered in the case of Hirabai Gendalal v. Bhagirath Ramchandra and Co., . In that case the plaint was filed by an Advocate without any Vakalatnama. The question was whether the presentation of such a plaint is a mere irregularity. The Court held it to be so and the Court further held that in such a case the Court have a discretion to permit the illegality to be cured with if the plaintiff has acted in good faith and without any gross negligence and the Court should allow the defect to be cured and then the suit must be deemed to have been filed when it was first instituted in view of Section 99 of the Code.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ramgopal Ghose vs Dhirendra Nath Sen And Ors. on 21 January, 1927

59. Another old Calcutta decision was cited in the case of Ramgopal Ghose v. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Ors., . The question in that case was that the pleading does not confirm to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 that defect therein is a mere irregularity and the same can be cured by the amendment. Consequently when the verification in the plaint was amended, the plaint was deemed to have been presented not on the date of amendment but on the date when it was first presented.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nawab Muhammad Sajjad Ali Khan And Ors. vs Nawab Muhammad Ishaq Khan And Ors. on 22 November, 1919

60. Another decision was also cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent which was a Special Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Wali Mohammad Khan v. Ishak Ali Khan and Ors., reported in AIR 1931 Allahabad 507. In that case also the Court held that omission to comply with the provisions regarding presentation of a plaint is a mere irregularity and does not effect the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court, therefore held that if a person presenting the plaint is not properly authorised, the presentation would be irregular and the Court will have the discretion to allow the irregularity to be cured if the plaintiff has acted in good faith and without gross negligence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next