Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
19. The law is well settled that while dealing with an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is to only make resort to the plaint/pleading
of the Plaintiff and documents produced by the Plaintiff. The Court has to read
the plaint in a meaningful and exhaustive manner and it cannot adopt a formal
approach. (Re.: Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead)
by Legal Representatives7; I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal8; ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal9) and T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal10).
The Limitation Act, 1963
Kuldeep Singh Pathania vs Bikram Singh Jaryal on 24 January, 2017
13. At this juncture it would be imperative to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kuldeep Sing Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal3 wherein
the Supreme Court held that while deciding an application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC the Court has to only consider the plaint or in essence the
pleading of the Plaintiff to decide whether it constitutes any cause of action.
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh(Dead) on 13 March, 2019
19. The law is well settled that while dealing with an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is to only make resort to the plaint/pleading
of the Plaintiff and documents produced by the Plaintiff. The Court has to read
the plaint in a meaningful and exhaustive manner and it cannot adopt a formal
approach. (Re.: Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead)
by Legal Representatives7; I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal8; ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal9) and T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal10).
Article 58 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
19. The law is well settled that while dealing with an application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is to only make resort to the plaint/pleading
of the Plaintiff and documents produced by the Plaintiff. The Court has to read
the plaint in a meaningful and exhaustive manner and it cannot adopt a formal
approach. (Re.: Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead)
by Legal Representatives7; I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal8; ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal9) and T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal10).
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indupal Kaur Sehgal vs Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Ors on 17 May, 2023
In the considered opinion of this
Court, the right to challenge the documents executed on 16.04.1999 and
10.08.2011 does not accrue to the Plaintiff (since Sh. Satish Kumar has since
deceased) in view of Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('Act
of 1882') [Re: Indupal Kaur Sehgal v. Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi &
Ors.5].
1