Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
This test
was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v.
M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd.
v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as :
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
The plea that once issues are framed, the
matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this
Court in Azhar Hussain case [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv
Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315.
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
39. The law is well settled with regard to deciding an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 has summarized
the law and the relevant extract reads as under:-
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the
written statement and application for rejection of the plaint
on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted
to, or taken into consideration. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v.
Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137]
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule
11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in
entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon,
would the same result in a decree being passed.
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. vs Hede And Company [Alongwith Civil ... on 15 May, 2007
In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede& Co. [Hardesh
Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court
further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence
or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance,
and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The
plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or
subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima
facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon
an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact.
D. Ramachandran vs R.V. Janakiraman & Ors on 11 March, 1999
Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another (And ... on 19 January, 1962
R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap
Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941] .
Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang & Anr on 12 April, 2006
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang,
(2006) 11 SCC 114 and more particularly in paragraph 23 has
observed as under:-
Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur on 1 July, 2019
53. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 to 4 have alienated the
HUF properties i.e. House at Mussoorie and Building at Tanda Road,
Jalandhar without any legal necessity, without consideration and/or
for immoral purposes to defendant Nos. 9 and 10 respectively. In this
regard, plaintiff has sought that the sale deed with respect to the above
properties be declared null and void. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur, (2020) 14 SCC 436 has observed
the sale of the coparcenary property must be for the legal necessity
and for the benefit of the estate and this onus to prove is on the
alienee. The relevant extract reads as under:-