Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.38 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Addanki Narayanappa & Anr vs Bhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors on 21 January, 1966
The question that arose before this court was whether a particular capital asset should be treated as a short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset, and this court, following a decision of the Supreme Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, held that a firm is not a legal entity and assets cannot be held to be of the firm. It was also held that it is the partners who own the properties and the firm is treated as a separate entity only for the purpose of assessment under the Income-tax Act and the properties really belong to the partners of the firm."
Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012
In Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that rejection of plaint is permissible, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, where the defendant sought rejection of plaint, on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action or non-fulfilment of statutory requirements. It has been further held that for rejection of plaint in respect of one of the defendants, before rejection, other defendants need not necessarily be heard, as their rights remain unaffected. Referring various earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as follows :
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity commr., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) CPC, when the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The cause of action should be a cause of action, as per law for the relief sought for in the suit. Stating something against law cannot be construed as cause of action to maintain a suit.
The Ootacamund Club vs H.S. Mehta on 1 October, 2009
20. This Court in The Ootacamund Club v. H.S.Mehta, reported in 2009 (5) CTC 627 has held that in a suit challenging the action taken against the member of the club, the defendant club challenged the order granting interim injunction and order dismissing the Application to reject the Plaint, by way of Civil Revision Petition before this Court, wherein this Court held that the revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable, in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy, by way of preferring appeal. Each case depends on its own facts and merits of the case. It is well settled that though appeal remedy is available, if it is established that filing the suit is an abuse of process, this Court can pass appropriate orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.K. Chandrakanth And Ors. on 30 July, 2002
In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. M.K.Chandrakanth and ors., reported in 2002 (258) ITR 14 Mad, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kamala Devi on 3 July, 1996
"Though under the income-tax law, a firm is treated as a separate assessable entity, under the general law of partnership, a firm name is a compendious mode to designate the partners. It is well settled that property of a firm is the property of partners and the use by the firm is the use by the partners. Therefore, when the assessees used the property prior to the dissolution of the firm for their residence, it must be held that they were owners of the property and they were using the property in their own right for the purpose of residence. A similar view was taken by a Bench of this court in CIT v. Kamala Devi [1997] 227 ITR 701.
O. N. Bhatnagar vs Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors on 21 April, 1982
"18. In our opinion, the learned single Judge is clearly in error in going beyond the statement contained in the plaint. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of deciding an Application under clauses (a) and (b) of the Order 7, rule 11 of the C.P.C., the averments made in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. (see O.N.Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narsindas, 1982 (2) SCC 244; RoopLal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1982 (3) SCC 487 and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asst. Charity Commissioner, 2004(3) SCC 137)."