Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (4.68 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 542 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Security & Finance Private Ltd. (In ... vs B.K. Bedi And Anr. on 18 January, 1974
I do not find any merit either in the contention that at the present stage of
the proceedings the first respondent's demurrer should not, or rather cannot, be
examined on merits. Mr Sen has relied on Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. B. K.
Bedi & Ors.,[1991] 71 Comp Cas 101 (Delhi); and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunals & Ors.,(1998) 2 SCC 70, in support of his contention that an
application in the nature of one under O.7, R.11 of the Code, can be taken out by
the aggrieved person even at the stage of recording of evidence. He is right in
saying so. In Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. a single bench of the Delhi high
court said (on p.121 of the report):
Section 454 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
I do not find any merit either in the contention that at the present stage of
the proceedings the first respondent's demurrer should not, or rather cannot, be
examined on merits. Mr Sen has relied on Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. B. K.
Bedi & Ors.,[1991] 71 Comp Cas 101 (Delhi); and I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunals & Ors.,(1998) 2 SCC 70, in support of his contention that an
application in the nature of one under O.7, R.11 of the Code, can be taken out by
the aggrieved person even at the stage of recording of evidence. He is right in
saying so. In Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. a single bench of the Delhi high
court said (on p.121 of the report):
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
"We may state that in the context of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a contention
that once issues have been framed, the matter has necessarily to go to trial has
been clearly rejected by this court in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (SCC p.324)
as follows: (SCC para 12)
"In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial,
record the evidence, and only after the trial... is concluded that the powers under
the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition
which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the
learned counsel, it is an argument which is difficult to comprehend. The whole
purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the
time of the court..."
Samar Singh vs Kedar Nath Alias K.N. Singh And Ors. on 28 July, 1987
The abovesaid judgement which related to an election petition is clearly
applicable to suits also and was followed in Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath. We
therefore hold that the fact that issues have been framed in the suit cannot come
in the way of consideration of this application filed by the appellant under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC."