Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 [Entire Act]
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
In light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (Supra) which deals with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. as well as in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has misdirected itself while considering the application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. and has moved on a premise which does not bear from the record also the arguments of the parties raisd before the Court has also not been considered by the Trial Court nor the effect of the relevant provisions of law has been taken note of and considered. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in so far as it relates to the disposal of the application for impleadment bearing Paper No. C-333 is concerned cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
Dr. Ranbir Singh vs Asharfi Lal on 21 September, 1995
11.3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580] .)
11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit.
Ruma Chakraborty vs Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr on 4 October, 2005
(See Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee [Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee, (2005) 8 SCC 140] .)
11.5. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.
Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors vs M.Chinniyan & Anr on 28 January, 2016
26. This Court is in respectful agreement with the proposition and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das. However, what needs to be seen is that the facts of the present case are not similar to the one in the case of Kanaklata Das. In the case of Kanaklata Das, the Apex Court was clearly dealing with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. In the aforesaid case, that the person concerned had made an application for being impleaded as a co-plaintiff. It is in view thereof that the principles regarding impleadment in a suit between landlord and tenant was considered and the principles as noticed above were laid by the Apex Court.
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
In light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (Supra) which deals with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. as well as in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has misdirected itself while considering the application under Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. and has moved on a premise which does not bear from the record also the arguments of the parties raisd before the Court has also not been considered by the Trial Court nor the effect of the relevant provisions of law has been taken note of and considered. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in so far as it relates to the disposal of the application for impleadment bearing Paper No. C-333 is concerned cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.