Court : Orissa
Decided on : Aug-28-1959
Reported in : AIR1960Ori159
..... authority of the earlier decisions in the other high courts referred to in the judgment, the nagpur full bench decided that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. mr. p. kar, learned counsel, appearing for the apposite party while commenting on the nagpur decision cited above, pointed out that in paragraph 16 ..... places one single suit could nor be instituted in the court of the additional district judge of damoh and secondly that the suit was bad for multifariousness. it was held that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction was concerned. section 17, civil procedure code is a complete answer. that section is ..... some in jabalpur tahsil. the suit was filed in the court of the civil judge, damoh and though no objection was taken on the ground of multifariousness and want of jurisdiction, the lower court had held that regard (being had to order 1. rule 3 and section 17 of the code of ..... apart, this certainly would result in multiplicity of proceedings. the only bar to such joinder is that the court has to see that there is no multifariousness, when there is misjoinder of parties and causes of action, which certainly would cause embarrassment and the trial of the action would be prejudiced. that, ..... filed in the court of the munsif, cuttack. it has to be decided whether the suit as filed in the cuttack court is bad for multifariousness and also to consider whether the splitting up of the cause of action is likely to result in multiplicity of proceedings. futhermore, it has also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-01-1959
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!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-29-1959
Reported in : AIR1960All103; 1960CriLJ188
..... , the surrounding circumstances leave no doubt in our minds as to the dishonest intentions of the appellants.36. mr. agarwala's final contention is that the trial was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as 26 separate instances of cheating were tried together whereas by virtue of section 234(1) cr. p. c. only three could be tried at one trial. the objection .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1959
Reported in : (1959)2MLJ555
..... ) 62 m.l.j. 492 : l.r. 59. indap 106 : i.l.r. (1931) all. 199. we are unable to see what relevance this decision has on the question of multifariousness. nor are we able to agree with the learned subordinate judge that the materials placed before him for ascertaining the amount payable by each set of defendants were insufficient. we ..... the burden of the restitution charge without any recourse to other sharers who got properties under that decree. the learned subordinate judge also found that the suit was bad for multifariousness. the respondents in this appeal did not seek to justify this finding of the learned judge and we are unable to see any reason why the suit was bad for ..... multifariousness. the only reason given by the learned subordinate judge for his conclusion upon this issue was that all the materials necessary for enabling him to work out the liability of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-15-1959
Reported in : AIR1960All19; 40ITR222(All)
..... income-tax department, the legislature was fully competent to give effect to this view in the law it made.for several reasons administrative tribunals are increasingly coming into vogue. the multifarious duties which a modern state is called upon to undertake make it impracticable that the normal procedure for adjudication of disputes by courts may be resorted to in every case .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-10-1959
Reported in : AIR1961P& H292
..... other creditor because of the pre-eminent neces-sity of running the state machinery as an organised society and supreme public concern. the state will be impeded in performing its multifarious and onerous functions if in collecting tis funds to maintain itself it were to be impeded and put at par with individual creditor. vide bank of india v. john bowman .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-20-1959
Reported in : AIR1960SC384; 2SCR311
..... of opportunity within the meaning of that article. 7. we propose to consider the second question first, on the assumption that matters of promotion are 'matters relating to employment'. so multifarious are the activities of the state that employment of men for the purpose of these activities has by the very nature of things to be in different departments of the .....Tag this Judgment!