Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.66 seconds)
Shree Precoated Steels Limited vs Macsteel International Far East Ltd. ... on 2 November, 2007
cites
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
133. The idea underlying Order 7, Rule 11(a) is that when no cause of action is disclosed, the courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of a suit. Having regard to the changes in the legislative policy as adumbrated by the amendments carried out in the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts would interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the Court's resources being used up on cases which will serve no useful purpose. A litigation which in the opinion of the Court is doomed to fail would not further be allowed to be used as a device to harass a litigant. See (Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi) 1986 DGLS 145 : 1986 (Supp.l) S.C.C. 315 : A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1253 : 1986(1) SCALE 573.
K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
87. Mr. DeVitre submitted however that the filing of this suit was itself vexatious and an abuse of the process as the suit has already been filed in the English Courts. He submitted that Courts have power under Section 151 of the CPC to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors.) 1998 DGLS 152 : 1998 (3) S.C.C. 573 : A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1297 : J.T. 1998 (1) S.C. 407 and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in (Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnamurthi and Ors.) A.I.R. 1982 Madras, 101. I will presume; without considering the effect of the Explanation to Section 10 of the CPC, that Mr. DeVitre's submission is well founded.
Modi Entertainment Network & Anr vs W.S.G.Cricket Pte. Ltd on 21 January, 2003
45. It would be convenient at this stage to refer to paragraph 24 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Modi Entertainment Network and Anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.) relied upon by Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. DeVitre, which reads:
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. And Ors. ... on 16 November, 2005
101. It is in fact interesting to note that the decision in Mackender and Ors. v. Feldia A.G. and Ors. (supra) is referred to at page 1254(32163) of the commentary and it is observed:
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
75. Mr. DeVitre relied upon the following observations from judgment of the Supreme Court in (Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M. V. Sea Success I and Anr.) 2004(9) S.C.C. 512:
Krishnan And Anr. vs Krishnamurthi And Ors. on 23 July, 1981
87. Mr. DeVitre submitted however that the filing of this suit was itself vexatious and an abuse of the process as the suit has already been filed in the English Courts. He submitted that Courts have power under Section 151 of the CPC to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in (K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors.) 1998 DGLS 152 : 1998 (3) S.C.C. 573 : A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1297 : J.T. 1998 (1) S.C. 407 and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in (Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnamurthi and Ors.) A.I.R. 1982 Madras, 101. I will presume; without considering the effect of the Explanation to Section 10 of the CPC, that Mr. DeVitre's submission is well founded.