Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.32 seconds)

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

13. Now, if the substance of the pleading of the plaintiff is looked into without any addition or subtraction, it clearly transpires that the suit is filed by the plaintiff not only with mala fide intention to misuse and abuse the process of law, as will be discussed herein under, the plaint also does not disclose the material facts constituting cause of action and the material facts as to when it arose, as contemplated in Rule 1(e) of Order VII. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. (supra), the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated in the plaint and Page 26 of 36 HC-NIC Page 26 of 36 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:32:18 IST 2017 C/CRA/10/2015 CAV JUDGMENT omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action. When Rule 1 of Order VII requires the particulars as mentioned therein to be stated in the plaint, more particularly the facts constituting cause of action and as to when it arose, the omission to mention such particulars in the plaint would make the plaint defective leading to the conclusion that it did not disclose the cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp on 29 July, 2009

18. In the instant case, the applicant Bank having already initiated the proceedings under Section 17 of the DRT Act, for crystallizing their dues as permitted by the BIFR, the suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking reliefs in respect of the same subject matter would be completely barred under Section 18 of the said Act. It can not be gainsaid that under Section 17 the Tribunal has powers and jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts, and under Section 18 no other Court or authority has jurisdiction or powers in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Joshi would have been justified in relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (supra), if the bank had not filed applications under Section 17 for recovery of debts due to the bank, and if the respondent had filed peremptory suit for obtaining orders of injunction against the applicant Bank. However, when the applicant Bank has filed the proceedings before the DRT, the respondent was expected to claim set off or counter-claim in respect of the Page 33 of 36 HC-NIC Page 33 of 36 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:32:18 IST 2017 C/CRA/10/2015 CAV JUDGMENT transactions in question, which were also the subject matter of the proceedings before the DRT. The respondent could not have asked for the prayers in the suit seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the DRT, Mumbai, which was not the Tribunal subordinate to the trial Court. As rightly submitted by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Thakore such a relief of injunction for restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a Court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought, would also be barred under Clause (b) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The respondent - plaintiff instead of filing counter- claim or making claim of set off in the proceedings initiated by the applicant Bank before the DRT, Mumbai, has filed the suit for recovery of the amount in respect of the same subject matter, on which applicant Bank has filed the proceedings before the DRT, Mumbai, which would also be not tenable in view of Clause (h) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Such a vexatious and dishonest litigation deserves to be dismissed right at the threshold.
Supreme Court of India Cites 133 - Cited by 200 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next