Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.33 seconds)Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
As against this, counsel for the respondents relied upon a later judgment of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. in respect of the proposition that Order 7 Rule 11 (d) was not applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the suit was barred by limitation. The point as to whether the words "barred by law" occurring in Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC would include the suit being "barred by limitation" was not specifically dealt with in either of these two judgments, cited above.
Khaja Quthubullah vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 8 July, 1994
This point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotech Property wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Arjan Singh vs Union Of India on 28 May, 1971
This point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotech Property wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija And Anr. vs Fab Leathers Limited And Anr. on 17 August, 1984
A contrary view has been taken in Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija v. Fab Leathers Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navrom Constantza and J. Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Coop. Ltd."
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Navrom Constantza And Ors. on 26 June, 1987
A contrary view has been taken in Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija v. Fab Leathers Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navrom Constantza and J. Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Coop. Ltd."
M/S. J. Patel And Company vs National Federation Of Industrial ... on 18 August, 1995
A contrary view has been taken in Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija v. Fab Leathers Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navrom Constantza and J. Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Coop. Ltd."
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
N.V.Srinivasa Murthy And Others vs Mariyamma (Dead) By Proposed Lrs And ... on 11 July, 2005
"Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma for the proposition that plaint could be rejected if the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The Bench did not consider the import of the words "barred by law" occurring in Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC exhaustively.
State Bank Of India Staff Association vs Popal And Kotech Property on 31 March, 2000
This point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman, Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P., Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana, Arjan Singh v. Union of India and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotech Property wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.