Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: kerala Page 1 of about 49 results (0.009 seconds)

Jan 31 2005 (HC)

Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT359

..... petition is filed uniting all the causes of action there will be misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. petition of such a nature would be bad for multifariousness.12. the misjoinder of cause of action is however regarded as irregularity and not a ground on which petition be dismissed unless objection is taken at the appropriate time. objection ..... distinct portions of the same structure, in the event of which there is no misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties and the petition is not hit by multifariousness.10. the difficulty arises when the landlord unites several causes of actions against various tenants who are in occupation of distinct portions of same building under separate tenancy arrangements. question ..... tenants in a single rent control petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifariousness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. a division bench of this court in c.r.p. nos. 714 of 1992 and 573 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1959 (HC)

Joseph Alias Kochu Vs. Makkaru Pillai

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1960Ker127

..... stated, as a general rule, that where substantial common questions of fact are involved in different claims against different parties, their joinder in one suit will not be regarded as multifarious.'20. in these circumstances we must repel the contention and hold that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties or causes of action.21. the third contention also ..... plaintiff.' (c. p. c., 6th edition, vol. 2, page 1899.)17. under the practice of the old court of chancery, a bill of complaint was open to a demurrer for multifariousness- when it attempted to embrace too many objects or causes of suit. the current provision which permits the joinder of defendants is order 1, rule 3 of the code of ..... 47(1) of the code of civil procedure, 1908, as contended by the appellants before us.15. the second contention of the appellants is that the suit is bad for multifariousness. the allegation in the plaint is :(passage in malaya lam omitted}.it is admitted that these allegations are sufficient to sustain the plaint, the contention is that the lower court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1984 (HC)

Kunhappa Nair and anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1984Ker99

..... 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 misjoinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the pan of the plaintiff to produce probate or letters of administration or succession certificate when the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2015 (HC)

Manikkan Vs. Govindaraj

Court : Kerala

..... action should be taken at the earliest opportunity as provided in order i rule 13 and order ii rule 7 of the code. similarly, the objections on the ground of multifariousness also should be taken at the first opportunity by virtue of the aforementioned provisions. the effect of not taking the objection at the earliest possible opportunity has been narrated in ..... action are joined separately against different defendants. this is violation of order ii rule 3 r/w order i rule 3 of the code. such a misjoinder is technically called multifariousness.24. causes of action cannot be joined in a suit filed against several defendants if they are not all jointly interested in the causes of action, unless common questions are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2004 (HC)

Kerala Community Development Extension Officers Association Vs. State ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [2005(104)FLR275]; 2004(3)KLT940

..... for allotting the next l/3rd to members belonging to other departments because the duties to be performed by the b.d.o's. in the development department are so multifarious the officers from different sources having rich and varied experience are required to man such posts. that being so, no member of the service can legitimately say that a major .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1996 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. E.K. Andrew

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [1999]95CompCas537(Ker)

..... what is involved in this case is an 'institutional' decision and not one taken by an officer specifically empowered to do it. 'if an administrator has to carry on his multifarious functions efficiently, it becomes essential for him to take the assistance of subordinates within his department. a decision in such a case is called 'institutional' because the decision as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2006 (HC)

Leonard Ashok Vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2007Ker87; 2007(1)KLT237;

..... different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, court fee should be paid in respect of each cause of action. the section reads as follows:6. multifarious suits. -(1) in any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the ..... it was also noted that as the 2003 amending-act used the expression 'per petitioner' as far as an original petition filed in the high court is concerned, even when multifarious reliefs are clubbed in the writ petition the court fee is to be reckoned not in respect of the cause of action but counted in terms of the number of ..... the writ petition. when the writ petition came up for admission the learned single judge felt that since there is challenge on 11 penalty orders, the cause of action being multifarious, the court fee should be paid in respect of each cause of action as held by this court in writ appeal no. 619/1989 and thereafter in an unregistered writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1991 (HC)

Harrisons Malayalam Limited Vs. Kerala State Pollution Control Board a ...

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1992Ker168

..... 1989 sc 611 observed that the question has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. the supreme court observed that 'every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. whether a particular industry falls within the realm of taxation, must be judged by the predominant purpose and process and not by any ancillary or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2016 (HC)

Sachidanandhan Vs. Vijesh and Another

Court : Kerala

Reported in :


Cases Relied:
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom 279].
Vimala Ammal V C. Susheela [AIR 1991 Mad 209].
Dwarka Prasad Singh v. Harikant Prasad Singh [(1973) 1 SCC 179 :. AIR 1973 SC 655].
P.P.S Pillai V Catholic Syrian Bnak [2000(3) KLT 629].
Peter Cherian v. Abraham [2007 (4) KLT 680].
Satheedevi v. Prasanna [2010(2) KLT 642 (SC)].
Ali Rowther v. Kochupennu [1986 KLT 718].
Kali Charanv. Janak Deo [A.I.R. 1932 Allahabad 694].
Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [A.I.R.1982 S.C.818].
Potter v. Sanders (6 Ha. 1).
Daniels v. Davison (17 Ves 433).
Holmes v. Powell (8 De G.M. and G. 572).
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397.
(Kafiladdin case, AIR p. 68).
R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal:AIR 1971 SC 1238:(1970) 3 SCC 140.
SCR p. 369 in Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand viz.
S.V.R. Mudaliar v. Rajabu F. Buhari, AIR 1995 SC 1607.

Cases Referred:
Bankim Chandra v. Anand Bazar Patrika [AIR (37) 1950 Calcutta 128].
Thanga Pandiyan v. S.R.Periaswami Thevar [1953 KHC 196: 1953 KLT 475, 2015 KHC 90.
Mohandas K. K. and others V Thankamma Pillai [2015 KHC 90].
Durga Prasad and Anr. v. Deep Chand and Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 75].
Appukuttan v. Kamalakshi [1996(2) KLT 977].
Dilip Bastimal Jain V Baban Bhanudas Kamble and others [AIR 2002 Bom. 279],
W.P. 6225 of 2007 of Bombay High Court, Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [AIR 2015 Mad 96], 2010(2) KLT 642 (SC).
Krishna Chandra Kabiraj and others V Sankaran Kabiraj and others [AIR 1950 Calcutta 128].
Chendivel R vs G Damodaran and others [2015 KHC 2237: AIR 2015 Mad 96].
Vigro Industries Pvt Ltd V Venturetech Solutions P Ltd : 2012(5) CTC 359.
State Bank of India V Cracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd : 2013 STPL (Web) 939

Comparative Citation:
2016 (1) KLT 75 (SN) (C.No.79),

..... payment of court fee, if at all found necessary. relying on the judgment in appukuttan vs kamalakshy [1996 (2) klt 977], it was contended that, payment of court fee in multifarious suits is governed by the provisions contained in section 6 of the act. the judgment in dilip bastimal jain v. baban bhanudas kamble [air 2002 bombay 279] and the judgment ..... deed against subsequent transferees in a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale. 27. section 6 of the kerala court fees and suits valuation act, 1959 reads as follows: "multifarious suits: (1) in any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on the same cause of action, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2015 (HC)

The Principal Vs. The Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulato ...

Court : Kerala

..... . cases 35 the committee, other than the educational expert belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community, are all secretaries to the government and the commissioner for entrance examination, having multifarious official duties to discharge, the legislature has incorporated such a provision fully being conscious of the practical difficulties which the committee would otherwise face in transacting its business. 31.along .....

Tag this Judgment!


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