Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.43 seconds)
Alok Sinha vs Smt. Anita Bhatnagar on 9 September, 2024 cites

K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011

20. So far as maintainability of an application under section 151 of CPC (in the present matter an application under section 94 read with Order 39 Rule 3 read with section 151 of CPC) is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 in para 10 has summarized the scope of section 151 of CPC which is quoted as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 551 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Gurbux Singh vs Bhooralal on 22 April, 1964

The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh Vs. Bhooralal (1964) 7 SCR 831, placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 230 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Smt. Chandrakanta And Anr. vs Ashok Kumar And Ors. on 18 April, 2002

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the decisions in the matter of Rugnath Vs. Jagannath, 1981 MPWN 192, Chandrakanta and another Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, 2002 (3) M.P.L.J. 576 and K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, had contended that the provisions of section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is right and undo what is wrong that is to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 64, 66, 70, 91, ... on 14 September, 2022

14. It was also argued that any injunction if granted results annuling or modifying previous injunction order granted in earlier suit. Such injunctions cannot be granted and Coordinate Bench of this Court while analyizing the aforesaid aspect has laid down the said analogy and if a temporary injunction is granted it would obviously have an effect on the aforesaid earlier order. Further reliance is placed in the matter of Gopalnarain Vs. State of M.P., 1979 JLJ 662 in the matter of Irfan Ali Vs. the Municipal Corporation Gwalior and another, M.P. No.3270 of 2023 decided on 23.6.2023 and in the matter of Ashok Sinha and another Vs. Atul Sinha and others, 2006 (I) MPJR SN16 and it was argued that the inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 11-11-2024 03:55:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:18673 6 MP-3853-2024 provision in the Code and the power under section 151 of CPC is to be exercised with circumspection and care and only when it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bonafides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court and as of now no such situation arises in the present case, therefore, allowing the application without considering that in the previous suit between the same parties injunction has been refused to the present respondent no.1- plaintiff which thus act as rejudicata, therefore, passing such an order is perse illegal and is required to be set aside.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 87 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1   2 Next