Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)

Mukesh Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 17 December, 2013

5. The defendants filed a joint written statement to the suit of the plaintiff wherein they denied that the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff and liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,18,720/- or any other amount towards remaining professional fees to the plaintiff with or without interest. The defendants submitted that the defendants have made payment of Rs. Case No. 600865/16 Mukesh Kumarr Vs. Sanjay Suneja Judgment dated 17.09.2018.                                                                                                                     Page no. 6 of  23  20,000/- vide cheque bearing No. 000787 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and cheque bearing No. 000788 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- both dated 26.11.2015 towards the full and final payment of fees/ expenses to the plaintiff. The defendants have made payment of entire fees/ expenses, the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The defendants submitted that the defendants never agreed to pay the amount towards the fees/ expenses as claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. The defendants had engaged the Plaintiff as their counsel for filling the suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit/ damages and permanent injunction against Punjab National Bank in Saket District Court, New Delhi. However, the plaintiff, though in the head note of the said suit written "Suit for possession, mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction" but did not make any prayer for the arrears of rent, mesne profit and damages in the said suit. Thus, in the absence of any prayer for arrear of rent, mesne profit and damages for illegal use and occupation, after termination of the lease, the suit of the defendants was decreed for possession only. Due to said negligence and carelessness of the plaintiff, the defendants were deprived of relief of arrears of rent, mesne profits and damages.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Icici Bank Ltd. vs K.P. Murgesan on 6 November, 2015

In the case of 'ICICI Bank Ltd. v. K.P Murgesan'1, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court pleased to observed that:-Cause of action, as commonly understood, is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment, in his favour, by the concerned court. Cause of action has no relation whatsoever with the defence set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. In ascertaining as to whether or not the concerned court has territorial jurisdiction, the court should take the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration without embarking upon an enquiry, at that stage, as to the correctness or otherwise of the facts so stated.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 Next