Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)
Ms. Sadhna Sharma And Ors. vs Premlata Gautam And Ors. on 29 September, 2005 cites

Mrs. Laxmi Bai And Others vs Kamalaksha G. Nayak And Others on 1 June, 1993

8. In the case relied upon by the counsel appearing for the applicant, the Supreme Court was concerned with the transfer of the writ petitions in exercise of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is incidental that reference to powers under Section 24 was made. It appears that the applicant cannot seek much help. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant also relied upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mrs. Laxmi Bai and Ors. v. Kamalaksha G. Nayak and Ors. AIR 1994 Karnataka 174 to contend that the application for amendment should be decided by this court. In view of what has been stated in this judgment, this Court is not the proper court before which the present suit could be filed and/or proceedings continued because of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The proper court to adjudicate the application for amendment will be the court which has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit as it was instituted. In any case there are no such special or compelling circumstances in the present suit which would justify retention of the suit on the original jurisdiction of this court for adjudication of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs Manju Awasthy on 1 May, 1997

11. The above decision of the Supreme Court thus indicates that abuse of process of law could be a very relevant consideration for the Court while determining such questions. There are no such compelling circumstances or special equities in favor of the plaintiffs which would require the Court to allow the prayer of the applicant which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions. The reliance placed by the applicant on another judgment of this Court in the case of Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. v. Mrs. Manju Awasthy , again is of no help and consequences, in as much as there the suit was ordered to be transferred from the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Judge to the court of Additional District Judge, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the court formed an opinion that challenge on the ground of loss of right of appeal by itself, alone, would not constitute a ground for declining the order of transfer as it was otherwise a case fully satisfying the ingredients of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - M Sarin - Full Document
1   2 Next