Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
19. The Supreme Court in T. Aribanandam vs. T. Satyapal AIR 1977 SC
2421 observed that if on a meaningful - not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly found to be vexatious and meritless in a scent of not disclosing a
right to sue, the Judge should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
In ITC Limited vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal AIR 1998 SC
634 the Apex Court reiterated the same principle and observed that question
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 118/2021 Page 7 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:PRIYANKA ANEJA
Signing Date:25.11.2022
12:31:37
2022/DHC/005122
is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something
purely illusionary has been stated with a view to get out of Order VII Rule
11 CPC. Clever drafting creating illusions are not permitted in law and a
clear right to sue should be shown in the plaint.
Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020
In a recent case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali & Ors.
2020 SCC OnLine SC 562, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is an independent and special
remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the
threshold, without proceedings to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on
the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be
terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
M..C. Chacko vs State Bank Of Travancore, Trivandrum on 23 July, 1969
In M.C. Chacko vs. The State Bank of Travancore (1969) 2 SCC 343,
it was observed that a person not a party to the Contract cannot enforce the
terms of the Contract. The only recognized exceptions are the beneficiaries
under the Contract or where a contract is a part of family arrangement,
which may be in a nature of trust being created in favour of the beneficiary
or in the case of family arrange, no third person can enforce a contract to
which it is not a party.
K.P. Ramakrishna Pattar vs K.P. Narayana Pattar And Anr. on 28 October, 1914
In Ramakrishna Pattar vs. Narayana Pattar AIR 1915 Mad. 584, a
declaration that a certain contract continued and subsisted, was claimed from
the court. The High Court held that such a declaration of contractual rights
could not be claimed under Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, (Old Act) as
they could not be held to relate to any person's legal character. It was
observed that the declaratory suits pertained to a legal character or a legal
status which is constituted by the attributes which the law attaches to a
person to his individual or personal capacity, the distinctive mark or dress,
with which the law clothes him apart from the attributes which may be said
to belong to normal humanity in general."
Mahabir Jute Mills vs Firm Kedar Nath Ram Bharose on 21 July, 1959
389
and in Madan Lal vs. State of Madhya Bharat (S) AIR 1955 MP 111 and by
Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Jute Mills vs. Firm Kedar Nath Ram
Bharose AIR 1960 All 254.
Princeton Niketan Pvt. Ltd. vs Faiz Murtaza Ali & Anr on 30 November, 2010
36. These aspects came up for consideration in Princeton Niketan Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Faiz Murtaza Ali & Anr. 2010 SCC OnLine Del. 4214. After making
a reference to all the aforementioned judgments, it was concluded that a
Declaration that an Agreement to Sell executed by defendant No.1 in favour
of second defendant is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff, cannot
be granted in law.