introduced in the written
6
statement by way of amendment is mutually destructive to the pleadings already made by the
defendant in the original written ... thika tenant in respect of the bare land, is mutually
destructive to its original defence made out by the defendant in its original
written statement
contradictory to the original
pleading of the petitioner but also are mutually destructive to the case made out by him in his
original application. Even ... original application but also the
proposed amendment is mutually destructive to the pleading originally made by him in paragraph
no.6 of the said application
Code as those two Sections are
not mutually destructive. This Court is not unmindful of the
fact that before the Trial Court some decisions were ... Sections 337 and 338 of the Code are
not mutually destructive to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Code,
then Section 279 of the Code
petitioner/defendant raises claims and pleadings which are not only
mutually destructive and conflicting but necessary antithetical to the settled
proposition of law . In this ... Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs v Tejrao
Bajirao Mhaske (supra) that mutually destructive pleadings are
impermissible also cannot be relevant in the instant case since
taken by the plaintiff/landlord
in the suit being inconsistent and mutually destructive,
the Court of Appeal below ought not to have interfered
with ... grounds
enumerated under Section 6 of the Act is mutually
destructive or inconsistent with the relief in the form of
eviction taking aid to Section
This Court, therefore, does not find
that both the proceedings are mutually destructive and cannot run
concurrently. On the point of maintainability and/or entertainability ... claims of both the proceedings which cannot be said to be mutually
destructive.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is enacted to protect the
common
Rules of business. Such discharge of functions cannot
be branded as mutually destructive but can co-exist. In this regard, the
experts from the decisions
Dr. Mani Kumar Chhetri vs State Of West Bengal on 30 June, 2017
Author: Joymalya
from
antagonistic contradictions and inherent hollowness. Both the FIRs
are thus mutually destructive. The subject matter of FIR 1004/16 is
theft of ten Aluminum
with a writ of Quo Warranto since both the
writs are mutually destructive. It is also argued that the scope of a writ of
Certiorari ... None of the decisions say that
Certiorari and Quo Warranto are mutually destructive and cannot co-exist. In
any event, by diluting the need
