Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Glasswood Realty Pvt Ltd And Ors vs Chadravilas Kailashkumar Kothari on 6 December, 2021
He points out that
in Ladymoon Towers Pvt. Ltd. and Glasswood Realty (P) Ltd. v.
Chandravilas Kailashkumar Kothari4, the High Courts at Calcutta and
Bombay, respectively, dealt with suits where the plaintiffs therein
extended a "friendly loan" to the defendants. However, those judgments
are not applicable in the present case, as the alleged loan transaction
here is supported by mercantile documents and also carries an interest.
Kailash Devi Khanna & Ors vs D D Global Capital Ltd & Ors on 28 August, 2019
6. Learned counsel alternatively submits that if the Court finds that
the instant suit is not maintainable as a commercial suit, it can be
directed to be re-registered as an ordinary civil suit, as was done in
Kailash Devi Khanna v. DD Global Capital Ltd.6.
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
10. The remedy contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is based
on an independent and special procedure, empowering the Court to
summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold without proceeding to record
evidence or conduct a trial if any of the prescribed grounds are met. The
objective of this provision is to prevent unnecessary prolongation of
litigation wherein no valid cause of action exists or the suit is barred by
limitation. The Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali7, summed up the law applicable for the rejection of a plaint
and held that a plaint shall be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of
action, is undervalued or insufficiently stamped despite court directions,
appears to be barred by law, is not filed in duplicate, or if the plaintiff
fails to comply with procedural requirements. The rule also includes a
proviso allowing the Court to extend the time for compliance in
exceptional circumstances to prevent grave injustice.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
independent remedy for the defendant to challenge the maintainability
of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits.
The Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity
Commr.9, held as under:
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007
12. Furthermore, in Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.10 the
Supreme Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a
sentence or a passage and to read it in isolation. It is the substance and
not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be
construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the
allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the Court
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844.
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi11, the Supreme Court further
held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this
provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound
to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste the judicial time of
the Court, in the following words :-
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
14. Moreover, the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be
exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering
the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before the
conclusion of the trial, as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment of
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra12.