Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Mr. Arun Jaitley vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. on 8 February, 2016 cites

Arunesh Punetha vs Boston Scientific Corporation And Ors. on 25 August, 2005

28. The decision relied upon by Mr. Phoolka in Arunesh Punetha (supra) is of no avail to the applicant. The above extract itself shows that the Court must look into the plaint and the documents filed on record. More particularly, it should look into the documents which have been referred to in the plaint to determine the merits of the application filed by the defendant no.6/ applicant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff is not expected to lead his evidence in his plaint. The pleading has to be in respect of "a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved" (see Order VI Rule 2(1) CPC). Thus, the plaintiff is not even expected to refer to specific pieces of evidence, namely publications which, allegedly, are defamatory to the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 16 - S Kumar - Full Document

D. Ramachandran vs R.V. Janakiraman & Ors on 11 March, 1999

16. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court in Ajay Verma v. M/s. East India Company & Ors., ILR (2007) II Delhi 333, I.A. No.1884/2016 in CS(OS) 3457/2015 Page 7 of 14 wherein this Court has observed that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, what is contemplated is that the plaint as a whole should be open to rejection. Even if one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff cannot be rejected under the said provision, the plaint as such cannot be rejected. For this proposition, the Court had placed reliance on D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1128 and ABN-AMRO Bank v. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, AIR 2000 Punjab and Haryana 44.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

Abn-Amro Bank vs The Punjab Urban Planning And ... on 22 July, 1999

16. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court in Ajay Verma v. M/s. East India Company & Ors., ILR (2007) II Delhi 333, I.A. No.1884/2016 in CS(OS) 3457/2015 Page 7 of 14 wherein this Court has observed that under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, what is contemplated is that the plaint as a whole should be open to rejection. Even if one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff cannot be rejected under the said provision, the plaint as such cannot be rejected. For this proposition, the Court had placed reliance on D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1128 and ABN-AMRO Bank v. The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, AIR 2000 Punjab and Haryana 44.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 33 - S Kumar - Full Document
1