Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.33 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S. Ambica Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 May, 2007
It, however, appears that the judgment reported in 2007 (6) SCC 769
(Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise) was not considered.
In this case, the primary reliefs are claimed against the respondents who are
49
having their offices outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Moreover, from
a reading of Paragraph 86 of the writ petition, along with the other paragraphs, it
is quite clear that facts constituting a cause of action are overwhelmingly at
Orissa and even if a prayer relating to bank guarantee could form a part of the
cause of action, the same is not primary relief and such bank guarantee was not
formed by the writ petitioner.
Section 21 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Musaraf Hossain Khan vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors on 24 February, 2006
The said decision, however, was
considered at least by two later decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC 1288
(Munsaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.) and 2004 (6)
SCC 254 (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of Indian and Anr.) It was
explained in the said decisions that such decision was rendered at a point of time
when Clause (2) of Article 226 had not been inserted.
Roop Lal Sathi vs Nachhattar Singh on 2 November, 1982
"13. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the
whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal
Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in 1982(3) SCC 487 only a part
of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the
plaint as a whole must be rejected."
Section 28 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kapila Hingorani vs State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2003
The situations that were contemplated for lifting of corporate veil in the Kapila
Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar case reported in 2003 (6) SCC1 are:
Ramesh B. Desai And Others vs Bipin Vadilal Mehta And Others on 11 July, 2006
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2006 (5) SCC 638
(Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors.), considered the plea
of demurrer and held as follows:
Ritu Sachdev vs Anita Jindal And Ors. on 25 February, 1982
The Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
1982 Cal 333 (Ritu Sachdev v. Anita Jindal & Ors.) was considering a plea of
36
revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground of
absence of territorial jurisdiction. Their Lordships have held that the question of
jurisdiction must be decided on the allegation in the pleadings and it must be
decided before the case begins whether or not there is a jurisdiction. It was
further held while leave has been granted under Clause 12 and the application
by defendant for revocation may raise questions far too difficult to determine
upon affidavit evidence and in such case the question should not be decided on
affidavit evidence and the question of difficulty and importance should not be
dealt with by an application to revoke the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters
Patent.