Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Section 19 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
In Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
(supra), the Supreme Court stated this proposition as under:-
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
30. The learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the
decision in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra) and have
referred to paragraph 14 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt.Ltd.& Ors vs Tosh Apartments Pvt.Ltd.& Ors on 21 August, 2012
32. We are unable to accept this contention. It is settled law that in order
to determine whether a person is a necessary party to an action, one of the
tests that is to be applied is whether he should be bound by the result of the
action. The Supreme Court in the case of Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd.
v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd.: (2012) 8 SCC 384 has referred to various
decisions and set down the broad principles which are applied while
considering an application for impleadment. The relevant extract of the said
judgment is as under:-
Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sumtibai & Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/O ... on 4 October, 2007
25. The facts in the case of Sumtibai and Ors. (supra) were clearly
dissimilar from those in the case of Kasturi (supra).
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors on 6 July, 2010
With regard to the application of
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt.
Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.: (2010) 7 SCC 417.
Dharmendra Kumar Nagar vs Harish Kumar on 16 August, 2010
37. After the orders in the present appeals were reserved, Respondent
no.5 (Harish Ahuja) filed an application (CM No.1/2014 in FAO(OS)
No.202/2013) seeking dismissal of FAO(OS) No.202/2013 as an abuse of
process of Court. It is stated that after filing of the present appeal, a fresh
Civil Suit CS(OS) No. 2355/2013 titled Dharmendra v. Harish Ahuja and
Anr. was filed by the appellant in this Court through a Power of Attorney.
The applicant further contended that relief in respect of the same properties
which are subject matter of the present proceedings was sought. Thereafter,
FAO(OS) Nos.202/2013, 212/2013 & 235/2013 Page 22 of 23
an application was filed for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to re-file the
same in case adverse orders are passed in FAO(OS) No.202/2013. It is
further stated by the applicant that yet another suit relating to the suit
properties has been filed by the appellant being civil suit, CS(OS)
No.2357/2013, where the applicant has not been arrayed as a party. It is
contended that the said action of appellant no. 2 in FAO(OS) No.202/2013
amounts to forum shopping. We are not inclined to entertain the present
application as the same has been filed after the orders in the present appeals
had been reserved. However, it would be open for the applicant to urge all
contentions before the learned Single Judge.
1