Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.52 seconds)
* Mathew vs Elikutty on 16 November, 2018 cites

Premier Tyres Limited vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 4 September, 1992

29. Same principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1993 (2) KLT 130) which was followed by a large number of decisions of this Court including Mathew v. Rajan (2016 (1) KLJ 526). On a perusal of the impugned judgment and Ext.A4 judgment by the District Court in A.S.No.43 of 1998, it can be seen that the issues involved in the suit for injunction and the suit for specific performance overlapped to a large extent and the core issue in both the suits was about acceptability and enforceability of the terms and conditions in Ext.A3 agreement. Therefore, I am of the view that allowing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.164 of 1994 to attain finality will prevent this Court from hearing and disposing of this appeal on merit by virtue of the principles of res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 127 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Mathew vs Rajan on 21 February, 2014

29. Same principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1993 (2) KLT 130) which was followed by a large number of decisions of this Court including Mathew v. Rajan (2016 (1) KLJ 526). On a perusal of the impugned judgment and Ext.A4 judgment by the District Court in A.S.No.43 of 1998, it can be seen that the issues involved in the suit for injunction and the suit for specific performance overlapped to a large extent and the core issue in both the suits was about acceptability and enforceability of the terms and conditions in Ext.A3 agreement. Therefore, I am of the view that allowing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.164 of 1994 to attain finality will prevent this Court from hearing and disposing of this appeal on merit by virtue of the principles of res judicata embodied in Section 11 of the Code.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Hariprasad - Full Document

Banta Singh Ganga Singh And Ors. vs Harbhajan Kaur And Ors. on 6 March, 1974

And the amendment application was filed only in the year 2011. In these factual background, it is relevant to remember the principle that belated amendments, which are not bonafide, cannot be allowed to unsettle the rights accrued in favour of a party to a litigation. It cannot be said in the facts and circumstances in this case that the application for amendment was filed in good faith at this distance of time. Catena of decisions, including Banta Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur (AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 247(FB)), are available to buttress the proposition that in order to exercise the court's discretion to AS No.484 of 1998 35 allow an amendment, it must be established that the applicant acted in good faith.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next