Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Abdul Gani And Anr. vs Devi Lal And Anr. on 5 October, 1959
2. Adbul Gani and Anr versus Devi Lal & Anr AIR 1960 Rajasthan 77 (V 47
C 19) - held that the word preliminary point should not be narrowly
construed so as to be confined to pleas a liberal meaning so as to include
any point connected or not connected with the merits of the case, a
decision of which in some particular manner results in the disposal of the
suit without the necessity of deciding other points actually arising in the
case which or at any rate some of which must necessarily be decided for
the disposal of the case in the event of a different decision on preliminary
point not resulting in the disposal of the suit.
Section 48 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 71 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Cimmco Ltd. vs M/S. Toepfer International-Asia Pte. ... on 8 August, 2000
Reliance can be
placed on T. Arvindam vs T. V Satyapal 1977 (4) SCC 467 - wherein it was
held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful informal
reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritÂless in the sense of
not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under order
VII rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled and in CIMMCO Ltd. vs TEOPFER International Asia PTE. Ltd & Anr
87 (2000) DLT 753 - it was held that best indication to find out whether a
party is a necessary or proper party is to pursue the paragraph dealing with
the cause of action and in the absence of cause of action, plaint may be
rejected qua such defendant.
1