Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-01-1981
Reported in : AIR1981Ori216; 52(1981)CLT431
..... day in favour of plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of those lands. the defendant in the written statement has stated that the suit is bad for multifariousness. the lower appellate court has relied on the decision in hadu sahu v. state of orissa, air 1964 orissa 159 and has held that the suit is not maintainable. in ..... . each of the plaintiffs set up a claim to a parcel of land in which the other plaintiffs were not interested. it was held that the suit was bad for multifariousness. there was misjoinder of plaintiffs because each plaintiff had separately to prove his own possession for more than sixty years and there was no common question of fact or law ..... the defendant is challenged and all the plaintiffs are aggrieved by such action of the defendant, they can file one suit and such a suit will not be bit by multifariousness. as has been held by the patna high court if the defendant does not make any challenge in the trial court as to the ..... multifariousness and allows a decree to be passed and if the decree does not affect the suit on merits in that case it would be deemed that be has waived. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-04-1981
..... is maintainable? 2. whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 3. whether the suit is time-barred? 4. whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and multifariousness of the causes of action? 5. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit land and correction of khatian as prayed for? 6. reliefs.' 5. the learned trial court decreed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-25-1981
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR333
..... 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 that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of plaintiff to produce probate or .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-08-1981
..... -fee, which would seem to follow from section 12 of the court-fees act, 1870, also, sri das urged that the suit having combined the two properties, is hit by multifariousness of causes of action and was therefore not maintainable. in reply, sri bhattacharjee has rightly drawn my attention to s. 99 of the civil p. c. wherein it is stated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-02-1981
Reported in : 22(1982)DLT14; ILR1982Delhi11; 1982RLR60
..... of shri hira lal garg, subordinate judge 1st class, delhi 3. has the suit been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction 4. is the suit bal for multifariousness 5. is the plaint liable to be rejected on account of prolixity and contravention of the principles of pleadings 6. does the plaint disclose any cause of action? 7. is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1981
..... in this case, for the court previously has recognized the necessity of a "broad rulemaking delegation" of authority in the area of depletion: "as congress obviously could not foresee the multifarious circumstances which would involve questions of depletion, it delegated to the commissioner the duty of making the regulations." douglas v. commissioner, 322 u. s. 275 , 322 u. s. 280 , 281 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-30-1981
Reported in : 1982CriLJ734
..... purpose of peace and repose it is necessary that an offender should not be kept under continuous apprehension that he may be prosecuted at any time particularly because with the multifarious laws creating new offences many persons at some time or the other commit some crime or the other. people will have no peace of mind if there is no period .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-28-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1829; 1981LabIC1313; (1981)IILLJ314SC; 1981(3)SCALE1275; (1981)4SCC335; 1SCR438; 1981(2)SLJ349(SC)
..... . v. general manager, central railways and ors. : 2scr311 where the law on the subject was succinctly stated by das gupta, j. who speaking for the court as follows: 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!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-1981
Reported in : 21(1982)DLT32; 1982LabIC1018
..... , prospects' and other requirements of 1967 service with that of appellant's service. this argument is unfortunately a mere hope of sand, and no claim, can befounded on it. 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!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Aug-18-1981
Reported in : 55CompCas107(Guj)
..... ,99,21,627. 50. nddb on the other hand has been set up by the ministry of agriculture and is registered under the societies registration act. it is carrying on multifarious activities all over the country mainly in the field of development of dairy industry. according to nddb the government of india is seriously considering a proposal to evolve a national .....Tag this Judgment!