Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)
Hirjibhai Jivanbhai vs Sadhu Magniramji Kashiramji on 10 May, 2019 cites

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, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510, the Supreme Court opined inter alia that ­ "Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent remedy made available to the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespective of his right to contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not contemplate at any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. Instead, the word 'shall' is used clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without intervention of the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of Rule 13."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 598 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Khatri Hotels P.Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 September, 2011

8) As above all discussion, I found that the plaintiff has brought this suit for cancellation of Registered Sale Deed, which was registered on 20/4/1985 at Sr.1278 in Sub Registrar Wadhwan and second one is registered on Sr. No.198 dtd.21/1/2000. Looking to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited Vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126, period of limitation would commence when eight to sue accrues. Looking to the time limit for the suit for cancellation of sale deed, is 3 (three) year, while plaintiff brought this suit 19/4/2011, which is time barred and as per sec.3 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the registered sale deed is being public document and deemed notice of its execution, therefore, plea taken by the plaintiff that he has no knowledge regarding the sale deed and they are cultivating the suit land and the defendant had restrained him on dt.10/4/2011 and threaten him to sold out the land, if the plaintiff was so threaten by the defendants, he obviously file complaint against the defendants, but here the plaintiff has neither produced such complaint nor plead such facts that he has filed complaint for such threat, in absence of such facts the cause of action mentioned in the plaint is nothing but cleaver drafting and which is not Page 18 of 30 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 07 23:17:10 IST 2019 C/FA/124/2014 CAV JUDGMENT believable without supporting evidence and plaintiff had also suppressed material facts of the record regarding the revenue proceeding, acquisition proceedings, criminal complaint filed by him and also public notice published by the plaintiff which are material facts for disclosing cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 137 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next