Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.24 seconds)Sh. Jag Mohan Chawla & Anr vs Dera Radha Swami Satsang & Ors on 7 May, 1996
In Jag Mohan Chawla's case also (supra), the same question was raised. In Para 5 of the judgment the Supreme Court went in detail and considered the earlier judgments also on the subject. Since the whole law has been discussed in this paragraph the whole paragraph is reproduced:
Mahendra Kumar & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 4 May, 1987
In Mahendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , where a Bench of two Judges of this Court was to consider the controversy, held that since the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before filing of the written statement, the counter-claim was maintainable. The question therein was of limitation with which we are not concerned in this case. Thus considered we find that there is no merit in the appeal.
Raman Sukumaran vs Velayudhan Madhavan on 26 February, 1982
Mr. Pratap Redely, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to number of judgments in this connection. He referred to Jashwant Singh v. Darshan Kumar , L. Manohar Lal v. Madan Lal , Hyderabad Roller Flour Mill Co. Ltd. v. Vallabhdas 1963 (2) An.W.R. 447, Sheobachan v. Madho Saran and Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madhavan , but the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this was the position before incorporation of Rule 6-A but after the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure and incorporation of Rule 6-A in Order 8 the whole law on the subject has changed and in order to avoid multiplicity of the suits the Parliament thought it proper that in all types of suits counter-claims could be filed.
Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala vs Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala And Ors on 27 March, 1963
Sub-rule (2) amplifies that such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. The plaintiff shall be given liberty to file a written statement to answer the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. The counter-claim is directed to be treated, by operation of Sub-rule (4) thereof, as a plaint governed by the rules of the pleadings of the plaint. Even before 1976 Act was brought on statute, this Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunila Kabarwala , had come to consider the case of suit and cross-suit by way of counter-claim. Therein, suit was filed for enforcement of an agreement to the effect that partnership between the parties had been dissolved and the partners had arrived at a specific amount to be paid to the appellant in full satisfaction of the share of one of the partner in the partnership and thereby decree for settlement of accounts was sought. Therein the legal representatives of the deceased partner contended in the written statement, not only denying the settlement of accounts but also made a counter-claim in the written statement for the rendition of accounts against the appellant and paid the court-fee as plaint. They also sought a prayer to treat the counter-claim as a cross-suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the counterclaim. On appeal, the learned Single Judge accepted the counter-claim on a plaint in a cross-suit and remitted the suit for trial in accordance with law. On appeal, per majority, this Court had accepted the respondents' plea in the written statement to be counterclaim for settlement as a cross-suit. The counter-claim could be treated as a cross-suit and it could be decided in the same suit without relegating the parties to a fresh suit. It is true that in money suits, decree must be conformable to Order 20 Rule 18, C.P.C. but the object of the amendments introduced by Rules 6A to 6G are conferment of a statutory right to the defendant to set up a counter-claim independent of the claim on the basis of which the plaintiff laid the suit, on his own cause of action. In Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6A, the language is so couched with words of wide width as to enable the parlies to bring his own independent cause of action in respect of any claim that would be the subject matter of an independent suit. Thereby, it is no longer confined to money claim or to cause of action of the same nature as original action of the plaintiff. It need not relate to or be connected with the original cause of action or matter pleaded by the plaintiff. The words ''any right of claim in respect of a cause of action accruing with the defendant" would show that the cause of action from which the counter-claim arises need not necessarily arise from or have any nexus with the cause of action of the plaintiff that occasioned to lay the suit. The only limitation is that the cause of action should arise before the time fixed for tiling the written statement expires. The defendant may setup a cause of action which has accrued to him even after the institution of the suit. The counter-claim expressly is treated as a cross-suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite court-fee thereon. Instead of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert multiplicity of the proceeding and needless protection, the Legislature intended to try both the suit and the counter-claim in the same suit as suit and cross-suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counter-claim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit. Acceptance of the contention of the appellant tends to defeat the purpose of amendment. Opportunity also has been provided under Rule 6-C to seek deletion of the counter-claim. It is seen that the trial Court had not found it necessary to delete the counter-claim. The High Court directed to examine the identity of the property. Even otherwise, it being on independent cause of action, though the identity of the property may be different, there arises no illegality warranting dismissal of counter-claim. Nonetheless, in the same suit, both the claim in the suit and the counter-claim could be tried and decided and disposed of in the same suit.
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
Jashwant Singh vs Smt. Darshan Kaur And Ors. on 27 January, 1983
Mr. Pratap Redely, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to number of judgments in this connection. He referred to Jashwant Singh v. Darshan Kumar , L. Manohar Lal v. Madan Lal , Hyderabad Roller Flour Mill Co. Ltd. v. Vallabhdas 1963 (2) An.W.R. 447, Sheobachan v. Madho Saran and Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madhavan , but the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this was the position before incorporation of Rule 6-A but after the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure and incorporation of Rule 6-A in Order 8 the whole law on the subject has changed and in order to avoid multiplicity of the suits the Parliament thought it proper that in all types of suits counter-claims could be filed.
L. Manohar Lal Nathan Mal vs Madan Lal Murari Lal on 2 February, 1956
Mr. Pratap Redely, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to number of judgments in this connection. He referred to Jashwant Singh v. Darshan Kumar , L. Manohar Lal v. Madan Lal , Hyderabad Roller Flour Mill Co. Ltd. v. Vallabhdas 1963 (2) An.W.R. 447, Sheobachan v. Madho Saran and Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madhavan , but the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this was the position before incorporation of Rule 6-A but after the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure and incorporation of Rule 6-A in Order 8 the whole law on the subject has changed and in order to avoid multiplicity of the suits the Parliament thought it proper that in all types of suits counter-claims could be filed.
Sheobachan Pandey And Anr. vs Madho Saran Choubey And Ors. on 18 September, 1951
Mr. Pratap Redely, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to number of judgments in this connection. He referred to Jashwant Singh v. Darshan Kumar , L. Manohar Lal v. Madan Lal , Hyderabad Roller Flour Mill Co. Ltd. v. Vallabhdas 1963 (2) An.W.R. 447, Sheobachan v. Madho Saran and Raman Sukumaran v. Velayudhan Madhavan , but the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this was the position before incorporation of Rule 6-A but after the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure and incorporation of Rule 6-A in Order 8 the whole law on the subject has changed and in order to avoid multiplicity of the suits the Parliament thought it proper that in all types of suits counter-claims could be filed.