Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
"16. The question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint. (See T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal5 )"
Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
(iii) In Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association; (2005) 7 SCC 510, in paragraph-20 again, the Court takes exactly the same view.
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
(iv) I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others ; (1998) 2 SCC page 70, in paragraph-16 of which, the Court had stated:-
Ketaki Sahu & Ors vs Laxmi Devi & Ors on 19 April, 2004
(v) Raj Narain Sarin (Dead) Through LRs. and Others Vs. Laxmi Devi and Others; (2002) 10 SCC 501, after considering the facts in the concluding paragraphs-8, the Court held:-
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
(vi) Further reference may be made to the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs. 2012 (5) SCC 370. In this case the Supreme Court has laid down at length the duty of the Court in finding of the truth and also with regard to the pleadings and the manner in which they are to be made by the parties. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are:-
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
6. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant strongly argued that the suit is filed by the respondents-plaintiffs by making serious concealments of facts which were within their knowledge. Strong reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of SP Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath;(1994) 1 SCC page 1. He further submits that a perusal of the plaint shows that it is nothing but a vexatious drafting, concealing the relevant facts, and therefore liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs have argued that for the purposes of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint can be looked into and the documents filed by the petitioner-defendant cannot be considered by the Court and, therefore, looking into the plaint allegations, the same cannot be rejected. It is submitted that only after the issues are framed and evidence is led by the parties, the Court can decide with regard to the objection on limitation and other objections raised by petitioner-defendant.
Hermes Marines Limited vs Capeshore Maritime Partners Fzc & on 22 April, 2016
"18................The law laid down by the highest court of a State as well as the Supreme Court, is the law. In fact, Article 141 of the Constitution of India categorically states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territories of India. There is nothing even in the C.P.C. to restrict the meaning of the words "barred by any law" to mean only codified law or statute law as sought to be contended by Mr. Patil. In the view that I have taken, I am supported by a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Hermes Marines Ltd....................................."