Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Mr. Palli Kishore Mavani And Anr vs Damodar Bhavan Co.Op. Housing Society ... on 7 March, 2025 cites

Foreshore Co-Op.Hng.Society Ltd vs Praveen D Desai (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors on 8 April, 2015

(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 595] has been correctly decided and cannot be said to be per incuriam, as held in Foreshore Coop. Housing Society Ltd. [Foreshore Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Praveen D. Desai, (2015) 6 SCC 412 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 333] "89. Section 2 of the Maharashtra Second Amendment Act, 2018 which provides that where consideration of preliminary issue framed under Section 9-A is pending on the date of commencement of the CPC, the said issue shall be decided and disposed of by the court under Section 9-A as if the provision under Section 9-A has not been deleted, does not change the legal scenario as to what can be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 9-A CPC, as applicable in Maharashtra. The saving created by the provision of Section 2 where consideration of preliminary issue framed under Section 9-A is pending on the date of commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018, can be decided only if it comes within the parameters as found by us on the interpretation of Section 9-A. We reiterate that no issue can be decided only under the guise of the provision that it has been framed under Section 9-A and was pending consideration on the date of commencement of the (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018. The reference is answered accordingly."
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 24 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019

Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) considered the decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare vs Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(2002) SCC Online Bom. 1337]. In that case the Trial Court had framed preliminary issue under Section 9A as to whether the suit was not maintainable as being barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC in view of pending suit before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that the Court is required to consider the bar to the maintainability of the suit under Section 9A of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressly overruled the said decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 107 - A Mishra - Full Document

Raghunath Das vs Gokal Chand And Another on 1 May, 1958

In Raghunath Das v. Gokal Chand [Raghunath Das v. Gokal Chand, AIR 1958 SC 827] , the execution of award of the decree was dismissed by the Court on the ground that decree was a nullity. The Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of the partition of agricultural land. It held that defect of the jurisdiction in the court that passed decree became attached to decree itself as dismissal of the suit was on account of the defect of jurisdiction. Thus, in our considered opinion, it is only the maintainability of the suit before the court which is covered within the purview of Section 9-A CPC as amended in Maharashtra.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Meher Singh vs Deepak Sawhny & Another on 22 September, 1999

The decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Meher Singh [Meher Singh v. Deepak Sawhny, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 452 : (1998) 3 Mah LJ 940] holding that under sa_mandawgad 12 of 16 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 10:28:18 ::: fa360-2017f Section 9-A the issue to try a suit/jurisdiction can be decided by recording evidence if required and by proper adjudication, is overruled.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Smithkline Beecham Consumer ... vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr. on 2 August, 2001

Pertinently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) considered the decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare vs Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(2002) SCC Online Bom. 1337]. In that case the Trial Court had framed preliminary issue under Section 9A as to whether the suit was not maintainable as being barred under Order II Rule 2 of CPC in view of pending suit before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that the Court is required to consider the bar to the maintainability of the suit under Section 9A of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressly overruled the said decision.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 15 - D K Deshmukh - Full Document
1   2 Next