Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.09 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Upadhyay & Co vs State Of U.P. & Others on 1 December, 1998
13.The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Upadhyay & Co. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 81. Reliance was placed upon the passages found in paragraphs 11 to 15. In that case, the Supreme Court dealt with the public policy behind the incorporation of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. Since that case arose under Article 226 of the Constitution, the public policy behind the incorporation of Order 23 Rule 1 was made applicable even to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. That decision has no bearing on the present case.
Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar ... vs Suhura Beevi Educational Trust And ... on 20 January, 1994
15.The learned Senior Counsel in support of her second contention placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust and others reported in AIR 1995 MADRAS 42 for the purpose of contending that though liberty may lie on the plaintiff to withdraw the suit at any time or abandon at any time after the institution of the suit, either the whole suit or part of his claim, yet that cannot be considered as absolute as to permit or encourage or ratify an abuse of process of court. If such withdrawal was done to the detriment of the legitimate right of the party defendant behind his back and with ulterior motive and oblique purpose, the courts are not powerless to prevent such onslaught on the institute of administration of justice. It is not clear as to how this judgment has any relevance to the facts of the present case. In that case, two suits were filed by the same plaintiff and in one suit, the contesting party was given up without notice so as to have the second suit deciding ex parte. It is in this context, the court came down heavily upon the plaintiff as the plaintiff was clearly abuse the process of court by giving up the parties in order to taking advantage of an ex parte decree.
Ranipet Municipality Rep. By Its Comer. ... vs M. Shamsheerkhan on 17 April, 1997
16.The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ranipet Municipality Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan reported in 1998 (I)CTC 66. Reliance was placed upon paragraph 11 of the said judgment, wherein this court after referring and approving to the decision of the Kerala High Court, dealt with the aspect of what is the meaning assigned to the term 'abuse of process of court'. The abuse of process of court is a malicious and improper use of some regular legal proceeding to obtain some advantage over an opponent. In this context, this Court held that when a person withdraws a suit without reserving liberty to file an another suit or cause of action and when no such liberty was sought for, he should not be allowed to file a separate suit.
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003
18.Mr.M.K.Kabir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Rank Associates countered the submissions by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea success I and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512. Reliance placed upon the following passages found in paragraphs 146, 149, 151, 152 and 155 may be usefully extracted below:
Papinayakanahalli Venkanna And Ors. vs Janadri Venkanna Setty (By Lrs.) on 7 June, 1984
In this context, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Papinayakanahalli Venkanna and others Vs. Janadri Venkanna Setty (by L.Rs.) reported in AIR 1985 Karnataka 166. She stated that permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit must be sought for and that should be specifically granted in terms of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC by the Court. If the earlier suit and the present suit are based upon the same cause of action and founded on same set of facts, then withdrawal will have to be permitted in terms of Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC.
Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another (And ... on 19 January, 1962
In Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh this Court held: (AIR pp.943-44, para 9)
By the express terms of Rule 5 clause (d), the court is concerned to ascertain whether the allegations made in the petition show a cause of action. The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims. If accepting those allegations as true no case is made out for granting relief no cause of action would be shown and the petition must be rejected. But in ascertaining whether the petition shows a cause of action the court does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It cannot take into consideration the defences which the defendant may raise upon the merits; nor is the court competent to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact. If the allegations in the petition, prima facie, show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims made by him.
Wipro Limited vs Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) ... on 29 February, 2008
19.The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this court a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Wipro Limited Vs. Oushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Ltd. reported in 2008(3) CTC 724, wherein a division bench of this Court held that in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is only the plaint averments will have to be taken note of and relying upon the defence or the written statement are wholly irrelevant at this stage.
Vallabh Das vs Dr. Madan Lal & Ors on 2 April, 1970
In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vallabh Das v. Madan Lal (Dr) reported in (1970) 1 SCC 761. The following passage found in paragraph 5 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below: