Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.16 seconds)
Sh. Vimal Khanna & Anr. vs Sh. Kishan Chand Khanna on 18 March, 2010 cites

Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003

Again, in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 it was held that when no cause of action is disclosed, the Courts will not unnecessarily protract the hearing of suit; the Court should interpret the provisions in such a manner so as to 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 further be allowed to be used as a device to harass. The said propositions equally apply to written statements/defence to the claim also.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 607 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Surjit Sachdev vs Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. ... on 1 February, 1997

8. The purport of Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable the party to obtain speedy judgment atleast to the extent of the relief which, according to the admission of the other party; he is entitled to. The Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Sachdev v. Kazakhastan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Others, reported in 66 (1997) DLT 54 has held that admission on which judgment could be claimed must be clear and unequivocal one and that such an admission made in the suit or even for a part of the claim enables a party to get a decree passed to the extent of the admission. The aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is well settled RFA (OS) NO.79/2009 Page 8 of 9 that in case of clear and unequivocal admissions the suit could be decreed which may be whole or in part for one of the reliefs. In the aforesaid case the Division Bench also laid down the factors which deserve to be taken into consideration to enable the Court to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour as regards possession in such like suit which are--(a) existence of relationship of lessor and lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by defendant as a tenant; and (b) determination of such relation in any of the contingency, as envisaged in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also held that an unequivocal admission of the above two factors would entitle the plaintiff to a decree for possession and that such admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 131 - K S Gupta - Full Document
1