Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Page 3 of about 143 results (0.007 seconds)

Nov 09 1984 (HC)

Escorts Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)

..... misjoinder of parties, causes of action or multifariousness.375. in view of the findings reached by us, the petitioners are entitled to the declaratory relief and also to a writ of mandamus and ..... costs of the writ petition or other expenses which were necessarily required to be incurred in this behalf. the writ petition does not suffer from multifariousness or misjoinder of parties or causes of action; the lic was properly misplacedas a party. the petition could not be rejected on any ground of ..... facilitated all the parties concerned. in our view, the petition could not be rejected on any ground of misjoinder of parties causes of action or multifariousness.352. it is argued on behalf of the respondents that since the learned single judge has refused rule nisi in regard to prayer clause (d ..... claimed against respondent no. 18 is not interested in the relief claimed against the other respondents.347. whether a plaint or a petition suffers from multifariousness, misjoinder of parties or causes of action must be determined primarily on the averments in the plaint or the petition, as the case may be. ..... writ petition.346. the learned attorney-general pointed out that the writ petition, both as originally framed as well as after its amendment, suffers from multifariousness; it is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. it was urged that respondents nos. 1 to 2 are interested only in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1985 (HC)

Clara Auroro De Brangenca and ors. Vs. Sylvia Angela Alvares and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1985Bom372

..... first two appellants, mainly on technical grounds. in fact, they raised quite a number of objections as regards the maintainability of the suit which, according to them, is bad for multifariousness, misjoinder of causes of action and parties and untenable under ss. 31 and 34 of the specific relief act, apart from the fact that the plaint is defective inasmuch as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1989 (HC)

Dilip Murlidhar Lodiya Vs. Mohd. Azizul Haq Mohd. Abdul Haq

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1990Bom228

..... the application for amendment. he strenuously urged before me that a counter-claim has been recognized by the civil procedure code and the intention in granting this recognition was to check the multifariousness of suits. the intention behind o. 8 may be laudable. but order 8 does impose some limitations on the counter claim. i shall come to these restrictions a bit later .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 25 1991 (HC)

John Solomon of Bombay India and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gre ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1991(3)BomCR711

..... dismissal of the suit. the next alternative is for a court to work out such relief as can be granted in a suit suffering form multifariousness. the first course is not open having regard to the long interval that has gone since the institution of the suit. if necessary, it ..... plaintiffs' contention that there is no misjoinder of causes or parties. be the substance in the stands whatever it be, multifariousness is not fatal in the sense of non-suiting the plaintiffs. there is first the right of the suitor to be called upon to elect ..... that there is no merit in the defence of multifariousness. three slightly disparate causes have been lumped together albeit as alternatives. there is of course a linkage between the alternatives to lend plausibility to the ..... earliest possible opportunity', defendants 1, 3, 4/16 and 28 filed their written statements as late as 1990 i.e. last year. defendants pleadings multifariousness could have taken out motions raising this plea. by their inaction they must be deemed to have waived the contention. this is not to say ..... with my findings recorded against each of them:--- issues findings1. is plaintiffs' claim as laid maintainable in law? 'yes'2. is the suit bad for multifariousness? 'no'3. do plaintiffs establish the validity of thestatutory notices served upon the stategovernment and the municipal corporation? 'yes'4. do plaintiffs establish a binding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1992 (HC)

Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and ors. Vs. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR22; (1992)94BOMLR965

..... court and consequently the high court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' claim. the trial judge did not accept the technical defences raised by defendant no. 5 about the multifariousness, failure to join the necessary parties, limitation, judicate etc. the trial judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the quantum of damages suffered for a period of three ..... be done.the suit was resisted by defendant nos. 5 to 7. defendant no. 5 claimed that the suit was barred by law of limitation and was also bad for multifariousness and for failure to join the necessary parties, that is defendant no. 11 who was a co-trustee at the time of institution of the suit. defendant no. 5 also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 2000 (HC)

Forum for Fairness in Education and ors. Vs. Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2001Bom136; (2001)2BOMLR138

..... to this court for a direction to the union of india to produce the tax assessment record of the appointee. that petition was, inter alia, rejected on the ground of multifariousness.27. there appears to us little doubt that the sheriff does have several duties under the letters patent of this court and the original side rules. we, however, feel that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

Ramchandra S/O Ukandaji, Died, Through L.Rs. Vs. Agricultural Produce ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR850; 2001(3)BomCR85

..... that subject matter of dispute and causes of actions are different. therefore, they should not have been included in one and the same suit. therefore, the suit is bad for multifariousness.(2) whether the plaintiff has proved that the disputed plots are part and parcels of survey nos. 72, 73, 27, 28 and 44 ?(3) whether the findings of the lower .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2002 (HC)

Ellora Furniture and Its Proprietor Narayanbhai Gowardhanbhai Julapara ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(1)MhLj287

..... the hon'ble the apex court. only ground (d) need to be reproduced in order to support the argument of advocate shri nawander:'(d) the suit is also barred by multifariousness and misjoinder of the causes of action. because warehouse (30 x 60 ft.) and eastern vacant plot of 60 x 18 ft. was alleged to have been given on lease .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2003 (HC)

Jagdeo Ramchandra Raipure Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR569; 2003(4)BomCR102; 2003(3)MhLj273

..... further that there is no provision, whatsoever, made in the bye-laws of the society, then it is bound to create not only complications, but it is likely to breed multifariousness of the proceedings. as i have observed above, i have even no slightest hesitation in observing that these rules under chapter v-a, do definitely apply and govern the elections .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. Jairam P. Kamat and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR446; III(2004)BC319

..... and therefore since the present suit was filed based on documents executed in march, 1979, there was no question of the said kanerker being a necessary party to the suit. multifariousness is commonly referred to misjoinder of claims. there was no other claim in this suit except against the present defendants who had executed the said documents. issue no. 1, therefore ..... bank refused to hand over the hypothecated goods to him.in the above background three submissions have been made on behalf of the defendant no. 3. the first is regarding multifariousness and non-joinder probably of the said r.s. kanerker. this plea was part of issue no. 1. the learned civil judge, senior division came to the conclusion that the ..... that all the defendants were jointly interested in the said cause of action arising under the said letter dated 26.2.1976 and therefore the present suit was bad for multifariousness and non-joinder of necessary party.the defendant no. 3 admitted the execution of general agreement and ancillary agreement on 1.3.79 (exhs. p-1 and p-4) but .....

Tag this Judgment!


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