Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.15 seconds)T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
If clever drafting has created
the illusion of a cause of action as observed by
Krishna Iyer, J. in the abovereferred
decision [T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Chhotanben D/O Bavamiya Kamaloddin ... vs Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & 5 on 14 November, 2016
Judge Bench of this Court
in Chhotanben v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai
Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998
Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184]
M/S. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. vs The Central Bank Of India on 5 June, 2020
(iii) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of
India9
"6. The central question is : whether the
plaint as filed by the appellant could have been
rejected by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC?
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
NC: 2025:KHC:20178
CRP No. 568 of 2024
HC-KAR
from the averments in the plaint, it is evident
that the suit is barred by any law including the
law of limitation. This position is no more res
integra. We may usefully refer to the decision
of this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv
Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]. In paras 13 to
20, the Court observed as follows : (SCC pp. 65-66)
"13. As per Order 7 Rule 11, the plaint is
liable to be rejected in the following cases:
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was
held that the basic question to be decided
while dealing with an application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code 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 of the
Code.
Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh on 2 November, 1982
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea
has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be
read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal
Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487],
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.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity
Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137] this Court held
thus : (SCC pp. 146-47, para 15)
'15. There cannot be any
compartmentalisation, dissection, segregation
Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012
8. On the same lines, this Court in Church of
Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [(2012) 8
SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612], observed as
follows : (SCC pp. 713-15, paras 10-12)
"10. ... It is clear from the above that where
the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the
relief claimed is undervalued and not corrected
within the time allowed by the court, insufficiently
stamped and not rectified within the time fixed by
the court, barred by any law, failed to enclose the
required copies and the plaintiff fails to comply with
the provisions of Rule 9, the court has no other
option except to reject the same. A reading of the