Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex
Court rendered in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal
(supra) as well I.T.C. Limited Versus Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal and others (supra) it would emerge
that the gross abuse of process of Court would be
condemned. Further, the reading of plaint for the
purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would be meaningful reading and not only
the formal reading of the same.
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat on 16 April, 1969
In support of the
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court
in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji
Dattatraya Bapat [AIR 1970 Page 1]. The Apex Court
had held that once a revisional jurisdiction was
invoked against the order of the appellate court and
the High Court dismissed the revision after hearing
both the parties, the order of the appellate court merged
in the order passed in revision and, thereafter, the
appellate order cannot be challenged and adjudicated in
the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. It was urged that, thus, court below was
not competent to entertain a fresh suit for declaration
that the order dated 11.1.2000 was obtained by fraud
upon the Court. It had further been contended that in
-7-
view of the above it could safely be construed that no
cause of action actually had arisen and by using the
word "fraud" upon the Court", the plaintiffs- opposite
parties have made an endeavour to create an illusionary
cause of action , which is not permissible under law. In
support of his submission learned counsel had placed
reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in
I.T.C. Limited Versus Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal and others [1998(2) SCC 70]. In its aforesaid
decision the Apex Court has held that the power of
rejection of the plaint can be exercised even after
framing of issues and matter is posted for evidence and
has further held that it was incumbent upon the
concerned court to look into the matter as to whether
real cause of action has been set out or something
illusionary has been stated with a view to get out the
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Learned counsel submitted that the defendant had only
supplied the material facts which the plaintiffs were
bound in law to disclose but they had deliberately not
disclosed.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex
Court rendered in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal
(supra) as well I.T.C. Limited Versus Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal and others (supra) it would emerge
that the gross abuse of process of Court would be
condemned. Further, the reading of plaint for the
purposes of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would be meaningful reading and not only
the formal reading of the same.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1