Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain on 4 April, 1977
23. The Bench also noted that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in
"Greenhalgh" was approved by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v.
Nawab Hussain (1977) 2 SCC 806:(AIR 1977 SC 1680) at page 809,
para 4.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
24. Following all these principles a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Direct Recruit ClassII Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of
Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 : (AIR 1990 SC 1607) laid down the
following principle:
K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
27. In coming to the aforementioned finding, the Supreme Court
relied on the Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet and
Maxwell. The relevant principles laid down in the aforesaid practice and
which have been accepted by this Court are as follows:
M.Nagabhushana vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 2 February, 2011
"This term connotes that the process of the court must be used
bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent
improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily
prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and
oppression in the process of litigation. ... The categories of conduct
rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not
closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this
purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may
be very material." [See: 'M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and
Ors.' reported in AIR 2011 SC 1113]
Devilal Modi, Proprietor, M/S. Daluram ... vs Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam And Others on 7 October, 1964
20. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Devilal Modi v.
Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1150, has explained
this principle in very clear terms:
Forward Construction Co. & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri & Ors. ... on 26 November, 1985
In the case of 'Tamil Nadu Consumers Cooperative Federation
Ltd; T A Jayalakshmi; V Haridas; V Ravindran and V Sudhakar
Partners, Vasu Studios Versus T A Jayalakshmi and Ors; Government
of Tamil Nadu', reported in 2008 LawSuit (Mad) 987, the Madras High
Court observed as under:
[14] In Forward Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal, 1986 1
SCC 100, the Supreme Court had observed that 'an adjudication is
conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as
to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have
litigated and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially
connected with the subjectmatter of the litigation and every matter
coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in
respect of the matters of claim or defence.'