Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.81 seconds)
Ogo Usa Inc vs Krishna Tissue Pvt. Ltd on 9 January, 2025 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors on 28 February, 2000

11. Thus, noting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala (supra), and despite the later embargo placed by the Parliament in inserting Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code, having regard to the judgment delivered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors. (Supra), I am of the view that the legal fiction of treating the counter-claim as a plaint does not extend so far so as to require the counter-claim to confirm to all the requirements of a plaint. The basis for such finding flows from the fact that there is no statutory requirement for a counter-claim to be filed within the territorial 15 jurisdiction wherein the cause of action arises. The only requirement as regards cause of action is that the same must accrue to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence and the only limitation is that the same shall not exceed pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. As such the incidental and/or inevitable corollary to give effect to the deeming fiction of treating the counter-claim as a plaint is that the cause of action of the defendant against the plaintiff must accrue to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has filed his defence, subject to the pecuniary limit as aforesaid. Considering the above, I am also of the view that a mere defect in pleadings is unlikely to the defeat the valuable right of the defendant to maintain a counter-clam, which has been filed within time and in accordance with law. In view thereof, a liberal approach is necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 124 - N S Hegde - Full Document

Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala vs Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala And Ors on 27 March, 1963

11. Thus, noting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala (supra), and despite the later embargo placed by the Parliament in inserting Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code, having regard to the judgment delivered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors. (Supra), I am of the view that the legal fiction of treating the counter-claim as a plaint does not extend so far so as to require the counter-claim to confirm to all the requirements of a plaint. The basis for such finding flows from the fact that there is no statutory requirement for a counter-claim to be filed within the territorial 15 jurisdiction wherein the cause of action arises. The only requirement as regards cause of action is that the same must accrue to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence and the only limitation is that the same shall not exceed pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. As such the incidental and/or inevitable corollary to give effect to the deeming fiction of treating the counter-claim as a plaint is that the cause of action of the defendant against the plaintiff must accrue to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit but before the defendant has filed his defence, subject to the pecuniary limit as aforesaid. Considering the above, I am also of the view that a mere defect in pleadings is unlikely to the defeat the valuable right of the defendant to maintain a counter-clam, which has been filed within time and in accordance with law. In view thereof, a liberal approach is necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 98 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

M/S Patil Automation Private Limited vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited on 17 August, 2022

13679 of 2023, she would submit that a Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi has come to specific finding that the provisions of Section 12A of the said Act are squarely applicable to a counter-claim as well, by reasons of the counter-claim partaking the character of a plaint in an independent suit, and non-compliance of such 5 mandatory provision would make the same liable to be rejected following the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of Patil Automation Private Limited (supra). By drawing attention of this Court to the counter-claim filed by the defendant, she would submit that the counter- claim does not concern the cause of action based on which the instant suit has been filed, at least, there is no averment in that regard in the counter-claim. By placing before this Court the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 6A(4) of the Code she would submit that a counter-claim is required to be treated as plaint and is also required to be governed by the rules applicable to the plaints. Since, the defendant has not complied with the rules as are applicable to plaints and having not pleaded the cause of action and having not disclosed as to how such claim is connected with the cause of action of the suit, the same deserves to be rejected. In the alternative she would submit that if the defendant has a cause of action against the plaintiff, the same may give an independent right to the defendant to move against the plaintiff, however, such claim cannot be included in the suit by way of counter-claim unless, the same is interlinked and inexplicably connected with the cause of action in the suit. In the facts noted hereinabove, she would submit that this Court may be pleased to reject the counter- claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 85 - Cited by 97 - K Joseph - Full Document

Barthels And Luders Gmbh vs M.V. "Dominique" on 9 October, 1987

On the question whether there is any impediment in filing a counter- claim which does not concern the cause of action of the suit, he has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Barthels & Luders Gambh v. M. V. Dominique, reported in 1988 Mah LJ 728. He would submit that it is true that the provisions contained in Section 12A of the said Act are mandatory, however, such provision cannot be made applicable insofar as a counter-claim is concerned as the statute does not recognize the same. Such contention would corroborate from a plain reading of Section 12A of the said Act itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Bollepanda P. Poonacha & Anr vs K.M. Madapa on 13 March, 2008

Before considering the 13 consequence and effect of the legal fiction of treating the counter-claim as a plaint especially having regard to the impact of insertion of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, it would be relevant to consider the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bollepanda P. Poonacha & Anr. v. K.M. Madapa reported in (2008) 13 SCC 179 wherein in paragraph 18 thereof the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted down the passage from the case of Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala reported in AIR 1964 SC 11 which, inter alia, records as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 110 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next