Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Radhika Prasad vs Nuruddin Khan And Ors. on 25 August, 2005 cites

Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002

so long as any of this condition does not exist the plaint can not be returned. The Apex Court in case Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 557 has laid down that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC the Court must decide the application on the basis of the plaint allegation only. In such circumstances this Court has to examine whether the plaint can be rejected in the present case on the basis of plaint allegation. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is covered under Clause D of Order VII Rule 11 that means his suit is barred by any law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 608 - Full Document

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004

7. The plaintiff in the present case has filed a suit for declaration and injunction at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11. This Court can not examine whether a plaintiff shall ultimately succeed or not. The only question which is to be decided is whether the suit is barred by any law or not ? Neither Section 53A nor Section 54, T.P. Act creates any bar for filing the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act Section 34 prohibits a suit for mere declaration without consequential relief. But in the present case relief of injunction is also prayed by the plaintiff. The Apex Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, , has laid down that whether one of the relief claimed by the plaintiff is not barred by any law then also an application under Order VII Rule 11 is not maintainable and as plaint can not be partly rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1