Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Fatehji & Company & Anr vs L.M. Nagpal & Ors on 24 April, 2015
The
consolidation ROR was issued in the year 1981. The suit was filed in
the year 2016. It is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. To
buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the
apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T. V. Satyapal and
another, AIR 1977 SC 2421, Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd.
vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC 614, Fatehji and Company
and another vs. L.M. Nagpal and others, (2015) 8 SCC 390.
Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh on 2 November, 1982
In Roop Lal Sathi vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3
SCC 487, the apex Court held that only a part of the plaint cannot
be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a
whole must be rejected.
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. A.P.
Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163, the apex Court held that a cause of
action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment
of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with
the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against
7
the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant
since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly
accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued
on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does
not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact
necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree.
Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to
immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has
no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the
defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed
for by the plaintiff.
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
The
consolidation ROR was issued in the year 1981. The suit was filed in
the year 2016. It is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. To
buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the
apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T. V. Satyapal and
another, AIR 1977 SC 2421, Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd.
vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC 614, Fatehji and Company
and another vs. L.M. Nagpal and others, (2015) 8 SCC 390.
The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940
18. The civil court has plenary jurisdiction. Seventy-five
years ago, the Privy Council in the case of Secretary of State vs.
Mask & Co., AIR 1940 PC 105 held that the exclusion of the
jurisdiction of the civil courts is not to be readily inferred, but that
such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.
It is also well settled that even if the jurisdiction is so excluded, the
civil courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the
provisions of the Act have not been complied with, or the statutory
tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure.
Section 34 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Gulzar Khan vs Commissioner Of Consolidation And Ors. on 7 May, 1993
In Gulzar Khan vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and
others, 1993 (II) OLR-194, question arose whether the civil court
has jurisdiction to entertain the suit after a notification has been
issued under Sec.41(1) of the OCH & PFL Act. The Full Bench of this
Court summarised the following principles.