Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-02-1972
Reported in : AIR1973Bom358; (1973)75BOMLR29; 1973MhLJ225
..... or fact arose between the plaintiffs. all the conditions of the above provisions of law are completely satisfied and the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit was multifarious was wrong. that finding is set aside.13. in connection with the arguments advanced by him mr.mhamane relied upon the judgment of mr.justice bhasme in special civil application ..... of the panshet floods. the relief claimed was essentially several and did not exist jointly in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. that fact was irrelevant in deciding the question of multifariousness. the result of the provisions of order 1, rule 1 of the civil procedure code is that where right to relief exists in favour of several plaintiffs as a result of the ..... the suit. the fact that the relief could be only several in respect of the premises to which each of the petitioners was separately entitled, did not make the suit multifarious. the reason was that, as is evident from the pleadings, common questions of law and facts had arisen between the parties to the suit from out of the same transaction .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-18-1972
Reported in : 92ITR430(Bom); 1972MhLJ826
..... rejected the petitioner-board's preliminary objections raised under section 11 of the 1961 act. he has pointed out that respondent no. 1 has stated that in view of the multifarious activities for profit, the board has engaged itself for profit and the income of the board was not covered by section 11 of the income-tax act, 1961. respondent no .....Tag this Judgment!