Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)
The Ootacamund Club vs H.S. Mehta on 1 October, 2009 cites

Sahebgouda (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ogeppa & Ors on 28 March, 2003

"22. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a civil court requires strict interpretation. The Court, it is well settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court. The burden of proof in this behalf shall be on the party who asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. (See Sahebgouda v. Ogeppa (2003) 6 SCC 151) Even otherwise, the civil court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 25 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Nesammal And Another vs Edward And Another on 31 August, 1998

21. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed in a petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to a decision of this court in 1998 (3) CTC 165 [Nesammal and another v. Edward and another] in which it is held that in view of the decisions and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the conditions are satisfied under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., the plaint cannot be rejected is without any basis and that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are exhaustive and the Court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious litigations are not allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors on 29 April, 2008

23. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would cite 2005 (7) SCC 510 [Popat and Kotecha property v. State Bank of India Staff Association] in which it is held that disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d)of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. The Apex Court in (2008) 12 SCC 661 [Kamala and others v. K.T.Eshwarasa and others] has observed that Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law, that what would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint and that the broad principle which can be culled out is that the court at the stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 203 - S B Sinha - Full Document

O. N. Bhatnagar vs Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors on 21 April, 1982

"18. In our opinion, the learned single Judge is clearly in error in going beyond the statement contained in the plaint. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of deciding an Application under clauses (a) and (b) of the Order 7, rule 11 of the C.P.C., the averments made in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. (see O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narsindas, 1982 (2) SCC 244; RoopLal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1982 (3) SCC 487 and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asst. Charity Commissioner, 2004(3) SCC 137)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 50 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next