Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.42 seconds)
Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari ... vs Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel on 12 September, 2025 cites

Rohit Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar (Now State Of Jharkhand) & ... on 17 October, 2006

original defendant no. 1 with respect to her undivided share in the suit property, by a direction to the Nazir, the substituted representative of defendant no. 1, to execute a sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell. The relief of specific performance as sought to be raised by defendant no. 2 cannot be set up by way of a counter-claim since the same is not directed against the appellant/plaintiff, but is instead directed solely against the co-defendant. In view of this, defendant no. 2 is held to be disentitled to raise prayer of specific performance by way of counter-claim. This is simply not permissible, and this position is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in Rohit Singh (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 87 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Kalra vs Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri on 19 November, 2019

In this regard having clarified the law, we may note that Mahendra Kumar case [Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P., (1987) 3 SCC 265] needs to be understood and restricted to the facts of that case. We may note that even if a counterclaim is filed within the limitation period, the trial court has to exercise its discretion to balance between the right to speedy trial and right to file counterclaim, so that the substantive justice is not defeated. The discretion vested with the trial court to ascertain the maintainability of the counterclaim is limited by various considerations based on facts and circumstances of each case. We may point out that there cannot be a straitjacket formula, rather there are numerous factors which needs to be taken into consideration before admitting a counterclaim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 108 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005

20. We may note that any contrary interpretation would lead to unnecessary curtailment of the right of a defendant to file counterclaim. This Court needs to recognise the practical difficulties faced by the litigants across the country. Attaining the laudable goal of speedy justice itself cannot be the only end, rather effective justice wherein adequate opportunity is provided to all the parties, need to be recognised as well (refer to Salem Advocate Bar Assn. case [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 : AIR 2005 SC 3353] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr vs Praveen Kumar Singh on 13 February, 2006

“13. 10. Considering the aforesaid ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred above, while this Court is conscious of the restriction while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, looking to the facts of the present case, interference is called for, in view of the fact that cause of action for seeking amendment and counter-claim could be said to have arisen, after the issues came to be framed by the trial Court on 12.02.2019. Undisputedly, the aforesaid prayers as prayed for by the petitioner herein, invoking Order-8 Rule-6(A) 1 and Order-6 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking amendment in plaint and for counter-claim by the present petitioner, would normally be not granted, after the commencement of trial and considering the fact that, it would result in prolonging the suit proceedings, however, the same depends upon facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of Order-6 Rule-17 and Order-8 Rule-6(A)1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, also provide that same be allowed, if the same are germane for determining the real controversy between the parties. In facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner· herein has placed on record the facts, which are new to the suit proceedings, and therefore, prayers as prayed for by the petitioner herein are required to be considered and required to be granted.” (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 148 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 Next