Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.74 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raptakos Brett And Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Modi Business Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. on 10 March, 2006
In paragraph 12 and 13 of the said judgment in Raptakos Brett and Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Modi Business Centre (Pvt) Ltd. (supra), has held as follows at pp.417 & 418 of MLJ:
Sidramappa vs Rajashetty And Ors on 9 December, 1969
18 Yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the one reported in Sidramappa v. Rajashetty AIR 1970 SC 1059 in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
Article 54 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
D.S. Thimmappa vs Siddaramakka on 29 March, 1996
27 The learned Senior counsel for the respondents relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1 A.I.R. 1996 SC 1960 (D.S.Thimmappa Vs. Siddaramakka)
2 (2004)7 SCC 650 (Dalip Singh Vs Mehar Singh Rathee and others)
in support of his submissions.
Dalip Singh vs Mehar Singh And Ors. on 18 August, 1998
27 The learned Senior counsel for the respondents relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1 A.I.R. 1996 SC 1960 (D.S.Thimmappa Vs. Siddaramakka)
2 (2004)7 SCC 650 (Dalip Singh Vs Mehar Singh Rathee and others)
in support of his submissions.
Kumarayee Ammal vs M.Ramanathan on 27 April, 2007
25 The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners relying on the decisions rendered by this Court and reported in
1 (2006)2 M.L.J. 411 (M/s.Raptakos Brett and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Modi Business Centre Private Ltd.)
2 (2007)4 M.L.J. 1145 (Kumarayee Ammal and others Vs M.Ramanathan rep. By his Power Agent S.P.Kathiresan)
submitted that in a case of this nature what is to be considered is, whether the cause of action now urged for the present suit was available at the time of filing the first suit or not. The learned Senior counsel contended that even at the time of filing the earlier suit, the agreement was said to be violated by the defendants and in such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for Specific performance also or else, ought to have obtained the leave of the court to file such a suit at a later stage. As the plaintiff has miserably failed to do both of the above mentioned actions, the learned Senior counsel submits that the latter suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 and the same is liable to be rejected.
1