Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1934 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.001 seconds)

Jan 19 1934 (PC)

S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-1934

Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.602; (1934)66MLJ451

..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has been to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme.18. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11, 15 differently from ..... -judge records in his 96th para, that the learned advocate for the plaintiff never represented that in case the court found the suit bad for multifariousness he should have been given this opportunity. he tells us, and this is not traversed by the other side, that he directed the attention ..... years.9. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. ' these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian cases are not otherwise.10. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position, afzal shah v. ..... himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath roy v. brajendra nath dass i.l.r.(1917) cal. 111 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraja mudaliar ..... representative is defendant 15).2. defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 12, and 15 took the plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness (issue 1) and the lower court finding this in their favour dismissed the suit. hence the appeal.3. the learned subordinate judge rightly directed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1934 (PC)

S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad367

..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11 and 15 differently from ..... no hesitation in finding that the lower court should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to elect, and if we found the suit bad for multifariousness we should have ordered to that effect.16. it remains to consider special pleas which were advanced on behalf of defendant 4, and also on ..... should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality : air1930all180 . when a court is of opinion, that a suit is bad for multifariousness, it ought to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his plaint and to elect.... patna high court 1928 in limaye, k.v. v. j.k ..... years. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality.14. these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian oases are not otherwise. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position; afzal shah v. lachmi ..... the suit. hence the appeal. the learned surbordinate judge - rightly directed himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath bay v. brajendra nath das a.i.r. 1918 cal. 858 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraju mudaliar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1934 (PC)

Mulchand Hemraj Vs. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-14-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom287; (1935)37BOMLR288; 159Ind.Cas.911

..... not only in the commission agency business but also in the pearl business of chaturbhuj pitamberdas & co. i also hold that the suit is not bad on the ground of multifariousness, and is maintainable as framed.8. the most important question, however, in the suit relates to the liability of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants who contend that they are ..... question of the 7th defendant's partnership later, because if it is held that he was a partner, the suit cannot be said to be bad on the ground of multifariousness.6. the original 1st defendant and the 4th, 6th and 7th defendants were the principal defendants in the suit. the original 1st defendant is dead, and the other 6th and ..... ).5. there is one other preliminary issue which i should like to deal with before' dealing with the main issue, viz., whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of multifariousness. it was argued by counsel for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants that there was a misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, as the suit is for an amalgamated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1934 (PC)

Chimanlal Ganpatram Ghanchi Vs. Natvarlal Maganlal

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-03-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom131; (1935)37BOMLR62; 155Ind.Cas.7

..... . the second rent-note purporting to have been executed jointly in favour of the mortgagee and divali was repudiated in that suit by divali, the suit was, however, dismissed for multifariousness and for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court did not go into the merits. in 1928 muli died, and towards the end of 1929 plaintiff has brought ..... between landlord and tenant, to raise the question of his rights as against the rights of muli or the mortgagee. to do so would have made the suit bad for multifariousness, and again it would have been dismissed without being considered on the merits. this question was, therefore, not constructively in issue in the suit of 1922, and on that ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1934 (PC)

Brojendra Nandan Saha and anr. Vs. Nekunja Behari Das and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-22-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Cal174,154Ind.Cas.775

..... exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. and the true test to apply, in our opinion, is to see whether a joint petition, treated as a plaint, would be bad for multifariousness, that is to say for misjoinder of causes of action or of parties.4. the two decisions on which the appellants rely have been dissented from in several cases. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1934 (PC)

Sadayatan Pande Vs. (Firm) Ram Chandra Gopal

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-08-1934

Reported in : AIR1934All688

..... suit the plaintiff had instituted a suit on the same cause of action against two sets of defendants. an objection was taken that the suit was defective on account of multifariousness because different causes of action arising against different defendants had been wrongly joined together. the court expressed the opinion that there was this serious defect and actually ordered that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1934 (FN)

Alabama Vs. Arizona

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-05-1934

..... federal. presumably no other state would attempt on similar facts to enforce a like measure, and alabama would have no occasion to invoke our jurisdiction further. the amended bill is multifarious. 2. this court may not be called on to give advisory opinions or to pronounce declaratory judgments. muskrat v. united states, 219 u. s. 346 ; willing v. chicago auditorium assn ..... for the prompt, convenient, and effective administration of justice, a suit by one state against several states to set aside a statute of each is properly to be regarded as multifarious. there has been suggested no reason to sustain alabama's complaint, as it stood before amendment, against the objection of misjoinder of parties defendant and of causes of action. cf ..... such products of their interstate character. responding to our orders to show cause why leave should not be granted, 17 of the states submitted returns suggesting that the complaint is multifarious and fails to allege facts sufficient to entitle alabama to any relief. at the hearing upon the questions so raised, counsel for alabama obtained leave to, and on a later ..... congress purporting to divest such products of their interstate character, operate unconstitutionally to deprive the complainant of its interstate markets for goods produced in its prison farms and factories, held multifarious. bitterman v. louisville & n. r. co., 207 u. s. 205 . p. 291 u. s. 290 . 2. this court may not be called on to give advisory opinions or to pronounce .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1934 (PC)

Pandit Sadayatan Pande M.L.C., Proprietor of the Firm Rai Saheb Sri Ne ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-08-1934

Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.135

..... suit the plaintiff had instituted a suit on the same cause of action against two sets of defendants. an objection was taken that the suit was defective on account of multifarious ness because different causes of action arising against different defendants had been wrongly joined together. the court expressed the opinion that there was this serious defect and actually ordered that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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