Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.27 seconds)Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mr. Bhushan Dattatraya Kedar vs Mrs. Dipti Bhushan Kedar on 4 May, 2018
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance on
Bhushan Dattatraya Kedar Vs. Mrs Dipti Bhushan Kedar, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 940; (2018) Mah LJ 842; and Vijay Pal Vs. Sunita & Another,
2014 SCC OnLine Del 1921: (2014) 215 DLT 146. These decisions relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellant are not at all attracted in the facts
of the present case. Both are cases dealing with res judicata, and not Order
II Rule 2 CPC, which has been invoked by the appellant.
Snp Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs World Tanker Carrier Corporation & ... on 10 September, 1999
7. The principle behind Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has been that
there cannot be two suits, if causes of action are identical in
substance. The object is to prevent multiplicity of suits as it is
directed against two evils; i) the splitting up of claims; and ii)
the splitting up of remedies. The provisions requires inclusion
of whole claim arising in respect of one cause of action in one
suit although right to sue for some reliefs may be reserved by
leave of the Court, but if no leave is obtained, suit for any relief
omitted is barred. It is also important to note that permission
to relinquish the relief has to be obtained in the earlier suit and
not in the subsequent suit (relief upon SNP Shipping Services
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. World Tanker Carrier Corporation AIR 2000
Bombay 34).
Vijay Pal vs Sunita & Anr. on 10 October, 2014
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance on
Bhushan Dattatraya Kedar Vs. Mrs Dipti Bhushan Kedar, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 940; (2018) Mah LJ 842; and Vijay Pal Vs. Sunita & Another,
2014 SCC OnLine Del 1921: (2014) 215 DLT 146. These decisions relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellant are not at all attracted in the facts
of the present case. Both are cases dealing with res judicata, and not Order
II Rule 2 CPC, which has been invoked by the appellant.
1