Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.46 seconds)Section 88 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
In the case of I.T.C. Limited Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Others ; (1998) 2 SCC page 70, in paragraph-16 of which, the Court had stated:-
Ketaki Sahu & Ors vs Laxmi Devi & Ors on 19 April, 2004
So also in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (Dead) Through LRs. and Others Vs. Laxmi Devi and Others; (2002) 10 SCC 501, after considering the facts in the concluding paragraphs-8, the Court held:-
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
"8. ................................... The plaint is totally silent on that score, though, however, the existence of the deed of sale noticed above stands accepted by the plaintiff. The litigation, in our view, cannot but be termed to be utterly vexatious and abuse of the process of court, more so by reason of the fact that the deed of sale being executed as early as 1941 stands unassailed for a period of over 50 years. The decision of this Court in T. Arivandandam1 has its due application and having regard to the decision as noticed above and upon consideration of the relevant provisions as engrafted in the Code itself, we have no hesitation in accepting the order of the learned Additional District Judge...................."(emphasis added)
Further reference may be made to the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs. 2012 (5) SCC 370. In this case the Supreme Court has laid down at length the duty of the Court in finding of the truth and also with regard to the pleadings and the manner in which they are to be made by the parties. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are:-
Mudit Verma (U/A 227) vs Ram Kumar & Anr on 4 July, 2018
This Court is also fortified in its view in light of the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mudit Verma Vs. Ram Kumar and Another reported in 2018 (8) ADJ 52 wherein the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 in context with suppression and concealment has been considered. The Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the various Supreme Court decisions held as under and the relevant portion thereof is being reproduced:-
Dr. Virendra Kumar Dixit & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru Collector, Luccknow & ... on 15 October, 2014
"32. The question as to whether the expression "law" occurring in clause(d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code includes "judicial decisions of the Apex Court" came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Virender Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P., 2014(9) ADJ 1506. The Division Bench dealt with the issue in detail in the context of several decisions on the subject and held in para 15 as under:
Hermes Marines Limited vs Capeshore Maritime Partners Fzc & on 22 April, 2016
"18................The law laid down by the highest court of a State as well as the Supreme Court, is the law. In fact, Article 141 of the Constitution of India categorically states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territories of India. There is nothing even in the C.P.C. to restrict the meaning of the words "barred by any law" to mean only codified law or statute law as sought to be contended by Mr. Patil. In the view that I have taken, I am supported by a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Hermes Marines Ltd....................................."
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Edu.Sty.& Ors on 11 December, 2012
Thus, apart from what has been stated above, this Court finds that that the plaintiff did not come to Court with full disclosure and in light of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors. Reported in 2013 (11) SCC 531 wherein in paragraph 42 to 47, the Apex Court has held as under:-