Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Unknown vs /17 on 19 June, 2023 cites

T. Mohanraj vs Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya ... on 17 August, 2011

If these three aspects are eliminated from the line of consideration, then there is no other aspect that would justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Reliance was also placed on the ratio in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Vs.Inder Kumar and Others [(2020 12 SCC 809]; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.B.Ranga Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others [(2020) 15 SCC 681]; Nakkheeran Publications Vs.Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust [2010 (5) CTC 318]; Venutal Motiram Ghongde Vs. Sadashiv Parashramji Madghe and others [AIR 1975 Bom 68]; Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3925 of 2018 Staff Association [(2005) 7 SCC 510]; T.Mohanraj Vs. Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam [2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 787].
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 4 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Prem Kishore . vs Brahm Prakash . on 29 March, 2023

● Turning to the aspect of res judicata, it is true the plaintiff had filed a few suits earlier, and that all of them were dismissed for default, but 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3925 of 2018 what is significant in the context of the doctrine of res judicata is that no issue has yet been tried and decided to attain finality. ● Thirdly, when the plaintiff's possession is lawful and settled, is he not entitled to maintain a suit for bare injunction, and hence the plaint can be sustained to that exent, but a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Reliance was placed on the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Others [2023 SCC Online SC 356].
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - S Dhulia - Full Document

Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005

If these three aspects are eliminated from the line of consideration, then there is no other aspect that would justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Reliance was also placed on the ratio in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Vs.Inder Kumar and Others [(2020 12 SCC 809]; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.B.Ranga Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others [(2020) 15 SCC 681]; Nakkheeran Publications Vs.Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust [2010 (5) CTC 318]; Venutal Motiram Ghongde Vs. Sadashiv Parashramji Madghe and others [AIR 1975 Bom 68]; Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3925 of 2018 Staff Association [(2005) 7 SCC 510]; T.Mohanraj Vs. Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam [2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 787].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 598 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Venutai Motiram Ghongde vs Sadashiv Parashramji Madghe And Ors. on 18 July, 1974

If these three aspects are eliminated from the line of consideration, then there is no other aspect that would justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Reliance was also placed on the ratio in Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Vs.Inder Kumar and Others [(2020 12 SCC 809]; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.B.Ranga Reddy (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others [(2020) 15 SCC 681]; Nakkheeran Publications Vs.Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust [2010 (5) CTC 318]; Venutal Motiram Ghongde Vs. Sadashiv Parashramji Madghe and others [AIR 1975 Bom 68]; Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3925 of 2018 Staff Association [(2005) 7 SCC 510]; T.Mohanraj Vs. Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam [2011 (3) MWN (Civil) 787].
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1