Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Baijnath And Anr. vs Smt. Ganga Devi And Anr. on 29 September, 1997
(i) 1997 SCC Online Raj 95 (Baijnath & Anr. vs Smt. Ganga Devi & Anr.)
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors on 6 July, 2010
17. While considering the claim of the appellant to implead itself as a party,
the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said decision, has held that a necessary party is a
person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a necessary party is not
impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party,
though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the
Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all the matters
in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against
whom the decree is to be made.
S.Krishnan vs Rathinavel Naicker on 29 August, 2006
In the decision reported in 2007 vol.2 CTC 73 S.Krishnan v.
Rathinavel Naicker and 22 others, it was observed as follows:-
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Robust Hotels(P) Ltd.& Ors vs E.I.H Limited & Ors on 7 December, 2016
In a case of Robust Hotels (P) Ltd v. E.I.H.Limited, reported in
2010 (6) CTC 192, it was held as follows:-
1