Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A. Janoo Hassan Sait By His Authorised ... vs M.S.N. Mahamad Ohuthu on 16 April, 1924
The Court further considered the case of Janoo Hassan Vs.
Mahamad Ohuthu 1924 ILR 47 Mad. 877. In that case also
despite notice served upon the defendant and a power of
attorney executed by the defendant the agent did not put in an
appearance. The case was allowed to proceed ex-parte. It was
held that the defendant was seen to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the foreign Court by the execution of the
power of attorney for defending the suit. It was further held
that ordinarily a judgment delivered ex-parte is deemed to be on
the merits and only when a defence is raised and not
adjudicated upon that the decision can be said to be not upon
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:33:27 :::
12 NMS.1580/13-S.2519/2010-Judgment
the merits. Hence it was concluded that if the defendant did not
at all appear and allowed the ex-parte judgment to be passed
that would be only upon merits because it would consider the
merits of the plaintiff's case, albeit only the plaintiff's case.
Algemene Bank Nederland Nv vs Satish Dayalal Choksi on 7 December, 1989
25. It may be mentioned that Section 13 of the CPC does not
create any bar to the filing of the suit. Section 13, calved as it is in
positive terms, only shows which foreign judgments are not
conclusive. Since it pertains only to judgments, it comes into pay
only during the execution of such judgments. Even in the case of
Algemene Bank (supra) the consideration before the Court was in
execution of the foreign judgment. Upon seeing that the Hong
Kong Court had not rendered it on merits, leave under Order 21
Rule 22 of the CPC in the execution application was refused.
Ephrayim H. Ephrayim vs Turner, Morrison And Co. on 25 February, 1930
In the case of G.S.C. Cole Vs. C.A. Harpen 1919 ILR 41 All
521 which was also considered in the judgment in the case of
Turner, Morrison (supra) the Court distinguished those cases,
because in that case the evidence of the plaintiff was led. The
Court, therefore, considered the plaintiff's evidence. It was held
that that was the judgment given on merits. This would be
considering the merits of the plaintiff's claim even if the
defendants' claim was not considered since it was not made.
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968
Section 9A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala & Ors vs V.R.Kalliyanikutty & Anr on 1 April, 1999
30. The case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Kalliyanikutty AIR
1999 SC 1305 is filed under Kerala Revenue Recovery Act
(1968) pertained to agricultural loans which were time barred and
hence could not be recovered thereunder. This is upon a similar
analogy. That aspect has been once agitated.
Col. B.S. Sarao vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 6 February, 2008
In the case of G.S.C. Cole Vs. C.A. Harpen 1919 ILR 41 All
521 which was also considered in the judgment in the case of
Turner, Morrison (supra) the Court distinguished those cases,
because in that case the evidence of the plaintiff was led. The
Court, therefore, considered the plaintiff's evidence. It was held
that that was the judgment given on merits. This would be
considering the merits of the plaintiff's claim even if the
defendants' claim was not considered since it was not made.
K.M. Abdul Jabbar vs Indo Singapore Traders P. Ltd. on 3 October, 1980
In the case of K.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Indo Singapore
Traders AIR 1981 Madras 118 a decree was passed by the Court
in Singapore for Singapore $ 30,000/- in a suit upon an
arrangement contained in a deed executed between the parties.
The judgment passed was sought to be executed. It was contended
that it was in-executable as it fell under the mischief of Section
13(b) of the CPC. In that case the summons was served. The
defendant appeared through his Counsel. Affidavits were filed on
behalf of the defendants for leave to defend. Leave to defend was
not granted. A decree was straightway passed. The Court
considered various earlier judgments and contentions including the
Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and observed
as in para 7:
1