Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.25 seconds)Wipro Limited vs Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ... on 29 February, 2008
In Wipro Limited and another v. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd., and Others [AIR 2008 MADRS 165 (DB)], it is held that only the averments made in the plaint should be taken into consideration to reject the plaint on any ground and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement should not be considered at that stage.
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
In Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 1253, it has been held that even in an ordinary Civil litigation the Court can reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action.
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
27. As regards the plea of fraud and damages claimed on the ground of fraud and deceit, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that in the absence of any specific allegations regarding fraud and deceit or coercion, the plaint is liable to be rejected on that ground. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R (38) 1951 Supreme Court 280 in the matter of Bishundeo Narain and another v. Seogeni Rai & others and AIR 1998 AIR SCW 237 in the matter of I.T.C.Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others in support of his contention.
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2015
25. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to cause of action, in my opinion, the plaint discloses cause of action for the relief of specific performance. Even though the applicant filed this Application to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent that the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action and the two arguments cannot go together. Either the suit must fail for non-disclosure of any cause of action or on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action. Therefore, when it is alleged that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action, indirectly, the applicant as well as the third respondent admit that there are causes of action but those causes of action cannot be joined in a suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action.
Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors on 13 April, 2005
23. Cause of action has been discussed in the judgment rendered in Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others [AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2392] in the following Paragraphs 24 to 27 :-
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
27. As regards the plea of fraud and damages claimed on the ground of fraud and deceit, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that in the absence of any specific allegations regarding fraud and deceit or coercion, the plaint is liable to be rejected on that ground. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R (38) 1951 Supreme Court 280 in the matter of Bishundeo Narain and another v. Seogeni Rai & others and AIR 1998 AIR SCW 237 in the matter of I.T.C.Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others in support of his contention.
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987
In this connection, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1242(1) in the matter of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College and others relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. In that judgment, it is held as follows:-
Raptakos Brett And Co. Ltd vs Ganesh Property on 8 September, 1998
In the judgment reported in AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3085 in the matter of M/s.Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd., v. Ganesh Property, it has been held that pleadings in the plaint should be read as a whole and on a conjoint reading of Paragraphs of the plaint if the cause of action can be culled out, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. Therefore, we will have to find out from the reading of the entire plaint whether the plaintiffs have made out a case of fraud and deceit and even though the exact word of fraud and deceit are not used if a conjoint reading of the plaint would disclose that fraud has been committed or fraud has been pleaded then the suit cannot be rejected on that ground.
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
Further, in the judgment reported in 1992 (2) SCC 524 in the matter of Ramesh Hirachand Kundammal v. Municipal Corporation of greater Bombay, it is held as follows:-