Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
In the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Vs. A Vismam, 1996(2) R.R.R. 353, it was held that a trespasser is not
entitled to injunction against dispossession by the true owner.
Vijayshree Commercial (P) Ltd. vs Tika Jagjit Singh Bedi on 1 July, 1996
Similarly, in the case of Vijayshree Commercial (P) Ltd. v. Tike Jagjit
Singh Bedi, 1997 DLT (66) 359, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
observed thus :
Wire-Netting Stores And Another vs Delhi Development Authority And Others on 9 January, 1969
11.The judgments cited by the plaintiff reported as Peeru Bhawana Vs.
N.C.T of Delhi & Ors. 2010 (168) DLT 553, Wire Netting Stores Vs. Delhi
Development Authority 1969(3) SCC 415 and Radha Ballabh Vs. Union
of India 2006(9) SCC 214 are not applicable to the facts of the case and
they do not at all support the maintainability of the suit.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
13.Although the case is at an early stage, the plaint has been subjected
to scrutiny to assess its maintainability in view of the observations of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and
Others V. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3 SCC 137
in which it was held that it is obligatory for the Court to reject the plaint
in the event of noticing any of the infirmities mentioned in Order 7 rule
11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The prayers made in the plaint have been
found to be barred by law and the plaintiff has no cause of action
sustaining the scrutiny of law. In these circumstances, I find no good
ground to keep the suit pending or to put it to trial. Even if the plaintiff
succeeds in proving the averments made in the plaint, she would not
become entitled to the relief claimed by her.
D.T.T.D.C. vs D.R. Mehra And Sons on 12 March, 1996
In the case of D.T.T.D.C vs. D.R. Mehra & Sons, 62 (1996) DLT 234
(DB), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that a licencee is, after
termination of licence, not entitled to any injunction against the owner.
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
In the case of Liverpool & London S.P.& I Association Ltd. Vs. Sea
Success I & Another (2004) 9 SCC 512 it was held that when no cause
of action is disclosed by the plaint, courts should not unnecessarily
protract the hearing of suit. It was directed that in such cases, the court
9 of 10
must save expenses, achieve expedition and avoid the courts'
resources being used up in cases which will serve no useful purpose. It
was further held that a litigation which, in the opinion of the court, is
doomed to fail should not be allowed to be used as a tool of
harassment.
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
In the case of Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff
Association 2005(7) S.C.C. 510, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the use of the word "shall" in Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure implies that a duty is cast on the Court to reject the plaint
where it is barred by law or where there is no cause of action, even
without intervention of the defendant.