Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 91 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
Popat Jamal & Sons, rep. by its Managing Partner,
Mahmud Jamal, Chennai vs. N.M.Venkatachalapathy @
Babulal and another reported in 2007 (1) CTC 251.
21/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.893 of 2008
Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff
Association reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510 ;
Kamala & Ors vs K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors on 29 April, 2008
Kamala and Others vs. K.T.Eshwara Sa and Others
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 661;
Bhau Ram vs Janak Singh & Ors on 20 July, 2012
Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh & Ors. reported in 2012(6)
SCALE 530;
C. Natrajan vs Ashim Bai & Anr on 11 October, 2007
C.Natarajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another, (2007) 14 SCC
183;
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019
The proper course would be for the defendants is to
file their respective written statements, if not so far filed,
and raise all the pleas on facts and laws in their written
statement in support of their contentions rather than to
raise the pleas by taking recourse to the provisions of
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In other words, the pleas raised by
the defendants in their applications under Order 7 Rule 11
ought to be raised in the written statement. Such pleas, do
not fall within any of the clauses of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
13/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.893 of 2008
The above principles of law had also been reiterated by the Apex Court in
the recent decision reported in 2020 (6) Supreme Court Cases 557 [Nusli
Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and others] whereunder held that
while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the
rejection of the plaint, only the averments of the plaint are material and can
be taken into consideration and any evidence or averments made in the
written statement cannot be considered. The abovesaid position has been
outlined by the Apex Court in the abovesaid decision as follows:
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties,
Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC
100;
Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ ... vs Krishna Nandan Singh on 2 September, 2019
Further he would rely upon the decision reported in 2020 (1) CTC 220
[ Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar Vs.
Krishna Nandan Singh and another] for the contention that the mere
contemplation or possibility that right may be infringed without any
legitimate basis does not disclose cause of action. The principles of law
29/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.893 of 2008
outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and
followed as applicable to the case at hand.