Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.28 seconds)Section 34 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
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.
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
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.
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.
Sheela Ram Vidhani And Anr vs S.K.Trading Company And 5 Or.S on 19 June, 2021
49. I am conscious of the position that in the case of Sheela Ram
Vidhani Vs S.K. Trading Co (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has
held that the decision in the case of Church of Christ (supra),
commands precedential value in contradistinction to Sejal Glass Ltd.
(supra) and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal (supra).