Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (3.81 seconds)Section 11 in The Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 [Entire Act]
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
11.1 In the case of I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 70, the Apex
Court has held as under.
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal on 19 April, 2017
15. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well
as this High Court, it is very well settled that exercising of
power under Order VII Rule 11 is permitted at any stage.
However, it has also been clarified by this Court as well as
the Apex Court that it depends on facts and circumstances of
each case. Thus, keeping in mind the peculiar fact that the
suit is as old as 33 years, issues framed, issues re-framed,
evidence of plaintiff is completed and right of defendant to
adduce evidence is closed, I see no good reason to allow the
application of the petitioner - original defendant under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Therefore, although I
respectfully agree with the proposition of law that application
under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 can be entertained
at any stage before pronouncement of the judgment, however,
facts and circumstances of this case warrants no interference.
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
C/CRA/190/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/06/2023
7.7 Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that if the
averments of the entire plaint are considered including the
cause of action pleaded, it cannot be said that the suit is
barred by limitation and barred by any law. It is further
submitted that as per the cardinal principle of law laid down
by the Apex Court as well as this High Court, at the stage of
deciding of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
only the averments of the plaints are to be seen and,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the trial court has not committed any error in refusing to
reject the plaint at this stage.
Sri Biswanath Banik vs Sulanga Bose on 14 March, 2022
16.6 At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of recent
decision of the Apex Court in case of Sri Biswanath Banik v.
Sulang A Bose reported in (2022) 7 SCC 731.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Opium Act, 1878 [Entire Act]
Ajendraprasad Nrugendraprasad Pandey ... vs Swami Keshav Prakashdasji - Guru Pukya ... on 16 August, 2016
(6) Decision of the Apex Court in case of Ajendraprasad
Nrugendraprasad Pandey v. Swami Keshav
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
"The first point here is whether the power to reject
the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. can be
exercised even after the framing of issues, and
when the matter is posted for evidence. This point
has arisen because the Division Bench of the High
Court has referred to this aspect while dismissing
the appeal." (Para 12)
"We may stated that in the context of Order 7 Rule
11 C.P.C., a contention that once issues have been
framed, the matter has necessarily to go to trial
has been clearly rejected by this Court in Azhar
Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi[1986 (Supp.) SCC 315]
(p.324] as follows: