Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: delhi Page 1 of about 251 results (0.043 seconds)

May 13 1991 (HC)

New Bank of India Vs. Roshan Engineering Industries and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1993]76CompCas670(Delhi)

..... and 4 in favor of defendants nos. 3 and 4 and issue no. 6 against defendants nos. 3 and 4. 16. issue no. 2 : the suit is not bad for multifariousness of causes of action anf parties because defendants nos. 5 and 6 who too become partners of defendant no. 1 have admittedly taken over all the liabilities of the firm ..... the whole amount claimed in the suit. 9. following issues were framed: 1. whether courts at delhi have jurisdiction to try this case? 2. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties? 3. whether the suit is within limitation as against defendants nos. 3 and 4 in view of the dissolution of the firm as on ..... court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. they also pleaded that the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation against defendants nos. 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2000 (HC)

Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Prem H. Lalwani and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)490; 84(2000)DLT565; 2000(53)DRJ483

..... received by them. in their written statement preliminary objection has also been taken challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this court. it has been submitted that the suit is bad for multifariousness, inasmuch as there are three distinct agreement to sell and three different suits ought to have been filed. it is further disputed that the orders prayed for in this application ..... also argued before me. 2. as indicated above three questions arise for determination at this stage, namely: (i) whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of multifariousness; (ii) whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit ; and (iii) whether the reliefs claimed for in the application ought to be granted. 3. mention has already ..... land sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. in these circumstances, i am unable to accept the arguments of the defendants, at this stage, that the suit is bad for multifariousness. it is quite likely that in the event of three separate suits having being filed, an objection that a single suit should alone have been preferred, could well have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1999 (HC)

Surinder Kumar Jhamb Vs. Mr. Om Parkash Shokeen

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)579; 82(1999)DLT569; 1999(51)DRJ704

..... . in the facts of this case, there arose common question of law and facts. for the reasons stated above, it can safely be concluded that respondents did not suffer from multifariousness nor hit by the provisions of order 1, rule 1 cpc. 10. now turning to the second limb of appellants, argument that suit property was not a vacant plot but ..... that unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into but for collateral purpose. mr. s.k. puri's main thrust of argument was based on the plea that suit suffered from multifariousness. according to him, once the respondents entered into three different lease agreements it would amount to creating three different tenancies. thereforee, there were three distinct transactions and three different causes ..... as under : 2. whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendant? opd 3. whether suit is bad for multifariousness? opd 7. whether there existed any structure and three rooms at the time of letting if so its effect opd 8. whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2001 (HC)

Dr. S.S. Rikhy and ors. Vs. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)772; 91(2001)DLT659; 2001(59)DRJ13; 2001RLR471

..... one unit and was in the occupation of the tenant as on unit, common question of law and facts had arisen and, thereforee, the suit still did not suffer from multifariousness nor was it hit but he provisions of order i rule 1 c.p.c.' it has evidently been overlooked that the division bench had specifically taken into contemplation the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1969 (HC)

Virendra Saigal Vs. Sumatilal Jamnalal

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1970Delhi14

..... by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1971 (HC)

Prem Kumar and anr. Vs. Dharam Pal Sehgal and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1972Delhi90

..... not to be judged at this stage, but no infirmity can be found with the present frame of the suit and it cannot be said that it is bad for multifariousness. i, thereforee, affirm the finding of the court below on issue no. 3. accordingly, the revision is dismissed and costs of the revision will abide by the result of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 2000 (HC)

Nandram and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1164; 87(2000)DLT234; 2000(56)DRJ662

..... dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or misguide of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1972 (HC)

Sita Ram Talwar and anr. Vs. Jai Dev Sharma

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1972Delhi769

..... allowing whereof would be necessary for bringing out before the court the real and pertinent aspects of the controversy in order to promote a final adjudication. it is intended that multifariousness be avoided. (8) while dealing with order 6, rule 17 of the civil procedure code the supreme court in jai jai ram manohar lal v. national building material supply, gurgaon, : [1970]1scr22 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1991 (HC)

N.S. Dass Bahl Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 46(1992)DLT97

..... as alleged 7 4. whether the claims of plaintiff are justifiable 5. whether the suit is bid for non joinder of necessary parties 6. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness 7. whether the suit has not been properly valued fur the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction 102 8. whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable 7 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1993 (HC)

Faqir Chand (Through L.Rs.) Vs. Laila Ram (Through L.Rs.)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1993IIIAD(Delhi)168; AIR1994Delhi161; 51(1993)DLT505

..... property. following issues were framed :1. is the suit liable to be stayed under section 10 or section 151 of the civil p.c.? 2. is the suit bad for multifariousness ? 3. is the suit not correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? 4. did the defendant construct any tin-shed on any portion jointly owned by the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //