Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974
Article 55 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 134 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mohammad Mustafa vs Sri Abu Bakar And Ors. on 8 December, 1970
16. In the present case, the trial Court has gone beyond the
pleadings and even no issue with regard to the nature of
guarantee has been framed, however, on the ground of
limitation, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Mr.Dave,
learned counsel has referred to the decision in the case of
Mohammad Mustafa (supra) and submitted that in the finding
having been reached without proper pleadings and necessary
issues the same cannot bind any of the parties to the suit though
it does indicate the serious injustice that was likely to happen to
the plaintiff because of its defective pleadings.
State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal on 2 May, 2008
15. So far as another question with regard to absence of the
pleadings, the trial Court has not framed the issue relatives to
the nature nature of guarantee. Mr.Dave, learned counsel has
referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of S. N. Goyal (supra) and has submitted that in the absence of
appropriate pleading on a particular issue, there can be no
adjudication of such issue; adjudication of a dispute by a Civil
Court is significantly different from the exercise of power of
judicial review. Thus, without framing the issue with regard to
nature of guarantee, the trial Court has decided the same and
dismissed the suit only on that ground. In view of the above, I
am in agreement with the said fact. It is well settled by the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless and until
there is specific pleadings in framing of the issue relates to the
said pleadings, the finding recorded by the trial Court is illegal,
unjust and improper. In the absence of the pleadings includes
the averments and grounds to challenge the order of removal on
the said additional ground. No issue was framed in that behalf.