Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Harish Relan vs Kaushal Kumari Relan And Ors. on 28 November, 2014 cites

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

20. It is settled position in law that if by means of clever drafting a camouflage has been created in order to create an illusion of a cause of action, such cases should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself i.e. even before admitting the suit and issuing summons or any time thereafter. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 (para 5); and Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs. Ponniamman Education Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 (paras 10, 12 & 13); and Ajay Goel Vs. K.K.Bhandari, 1999 (48) DRJ 292 (paras 2, 5-8, 15) are relevant in this regard. Therefore, this Court can suo-moto exercise its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without there being a formal application for the said purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012

20. It is settled position in law that if by means of clever drafting a camouflage has been created in order to create an illusion of a cause of action, such cases should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself i.e. even before admitting the suit and issuing summons or any time thereafter. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 (para 5); and Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs. Ponniamman Education Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 (paras 10, 12 & 13); and Ajay Goel Vs. K.K.Bhandari, 1999 (48) DRJ 292 (paras 2, 5-8, 15) are relevant in this regard. Therefore, this Court can suo-moto exercise its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without there being a formal application for the said purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 306 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Ajay Goel vs K.K.Bhandari & Ors. on 13 February, 2012

20. It is settled position in law that if by means of clever drafting a camouflage has been created in order to create an illusion of a cause of action, such cases should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself i.e. even before admitting the suit and issuing summons or any time thereafter. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 (para 5); and Church of Christ Charitable Trust Vs. Ponniamman Education Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 (paras 10, 12 & 13); and Ajay Goel Vs. K.K.Bhandari, 1999 (48) DRJ 292 (paras 2, 5-8, 15) are relevant in this regard. Therefore, this Court can suo-moto exercise its powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without there being a formal application for the said purpose.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - P Rani - Full Document

Heeralal vs Kalyan Mal & Ors on 19 November, 1997

"20. The learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the decision in Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal & Ors. (JT 1997 (9) SC 267: 1998 (1) SCC 278) wherein the court proceeded on the basis that the earlier admissions of the defendant cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. The court examined the facts and held that the defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw any admission already made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 164 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974

38. The rule, however, is not a universal one and under certain circumstance, such an amendment may be allowed by the court notwithstanding the law of limitation. The fact that the claim is barred by law of limitation is but one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in exercising the discretion as to whether the amendment should be allowed or refused, but it does not affect the power of the court if the amendment is required in the interests of justice. Ganga Bai vs. Vijai Kumar (1974) (2) SCC 393):
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 396 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

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

Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to amend the plaint which would prejudicially affect the rights of the respondents. We find no force in the contention of the appellant. No doubt, the amendment of the plaint is normally granted and only in exceptional cases where the accrued rights are taken away by amendment of the pleading, the Court would refuse the amendment. This Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala MANU/SC/0019/1963 : [1964]2SCR567 held thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 98 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next