Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993

46. The plaintiff by suppressing the material facts pertaining to the pending litigations inter-se the parties herein qua the suit properties has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI CS(OS) 7/2025 Page 29 of 30 only misled the court but has also played fraud upon this Court. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and the law settled by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (supra) and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others (supra), the plaint is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 979 - K Singh - Full Document

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004

46. The plaintiff by suppressing the material facts pertaining to the pending litigations inter-se the parties herein qua the suit properties has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI CS(OS) 7/2025 Page 29 of 30 only misled the court but has also played fraud upon this Court. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and the law settled by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (supra) and Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others (supra), the plaint is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

In support of the maintainability of the present suit, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal7, and contended that the said decision mandates dismissal only where the suit is ex facie frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. He stated that the present suit is not mala fide, but is based on registered conveyances, and while there may have been certain omissions in the pleadings, the substantive claim is genuine and bona fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next