Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.60 seconds)
Nakkheeran Publications vs Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust on 19 July, 2010 cites

R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran ... vs J.Jayalalitha on 6 April, 2006

In R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Goal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and another vs. J.Jayalilitha and another reported in (2006) 2 L.W. 377, the Division Bench of this Court had referred to the plaint and to the fact that none of the articles are reproduced in the plaint and it is also not stated how the articles are defamatory and the Division Bench held that if the necessary averments are not there, the plaint may be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. We are informed that application for rejection of plaint is still pending. But in that case, while vacating the injunction, the First Bench had circumscribed the extent to which the publisher was at liberty to make publication. It gave directions that the publisher should verify from the person and only thereafter publish etc based on the main prayers sought for.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114 the Supreme Court expressed its anguish on false statements being made on oath to mislead the Courts and also has held that if the appellant does not come with clean hands and has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court will not suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct. The learned counsel submitted therefore the issue of rejection of plaint must be tested not only on touching stone of Order VII Rule 11 but also on the conduct of the person claiming the relief, especially in a case where he seeks injunction, which is an equitable remedy and therefore, the duty on the plaintiff to seek this remedy is totally onerous and he must disclose that he has come to Court with clean hands.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 659 - Full Document

Rbef (Ritnand Balved Education ... vs Mr. Alok Kumar on 3 July, 2006

7. The learned counsel submitted that it has subsequently come to light that all those photographs were genuine and there was no morphing and when the person aggrieved has not come before this Court and when there are no allegations against the Trust, the plaint will have to be rejected. According to the learned counsel, the directions given by the learned Single Judge are vague and they are contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court in cases involving identical issues.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1