Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)

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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 107 - A Mishra - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next