Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.004 seconds)

Sep 09 2004 (HC)

Bandaru Ramana and ors. Vs. Gedela Appalanaidu Alias Naidubabu and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-09-2004

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD413; 2004(6)ALT500

..... , but not the suit properties, which she parted even by 1943. with regard to all other issues viz., whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction; whether the suit is bad for multifariousness etc, the trial court answered all other issues in affirmative. however, as the main issue was answered in favour of the defendants, the trial court ultimately considering the decisions cited ..... dated 10.4.1973 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 4. whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to maintain this suit? 5. whether this suit is bad for multifariousness? 6. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the plaint schedule land? 7. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits as to what amount? 8. to what relief?14 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

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

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-22-2004

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 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!

Oct 26 2004 (HC)

Bachoo Lal and ors. Vs. Vishnu Sharma (Decd.) by L.R. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-26-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC2384

..... issues were framed by the trial court :-'(1) whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10/151, c.p.c.?(2) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness?(3) whether the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient?(4) whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in suit as alleged in paras 1a, 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2004 (HC)

D. Vidya Sagar Rao and anr. Vs. K. Indira Devi and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-30-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD426; 2004(2)ALT689

..... 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 the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2004 (HC)

Premlata Nahata and anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-16-2004

Reported in : IV(2004)BC602

..... cannot be said that there is no nexus between the two causes of action. so there is no reason to say that the suit is bad for multifariousness.21. for the foregoing reasons, i am of the view that this application should be dismissed; and hence it is hereby dismissed.22. costs of this ..... the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. it is therefore clear that a plea of multifariousness is not to be examined with a rigid approach.20. i find that in this case if the plaintiffs brought separate suits, then such suits would ..... order 7 rule 11 (d) of the cpc for rejection of a plaint; and (2) whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for multifariousness.9. the word 'multifariousness' does not find a mention in the cpc. in connection with pleading it means the improper joining the distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding ..... two or more plaintiffs by joining their separate causes of action. misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action are only obstacles to one trial. multifarious ness is not a ground for rejection of a plaint. since a suit cannot be defeated for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, ..... plaintiffs, and hence there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs to join their independent causes of action against the defendant in one suit. according to him multifarious ness will attract the provisions of order 7 rule 11 (d) of the cpc, and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected.5. mr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2004 (HC)

Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. Bhajan Singh (Died) Through Lrs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-22-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H207; (2005)140PLR170

..... 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 the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2004 (HC)

Assembly of God Church Vs. Ivan Kapper and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-12-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)CHN360

..... different and as such, the suit was bad formisjoinder of plaintiffs as well as of causes of action. in other words, according to the defendants, the suit was bad for multifariousness.4. the learned trial judge, by the order impugned herein, has dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the alleged defects pointed out by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2004 (HC)

Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya and ors. Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporat ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-29-2004

Reported in : III(2005)ACC31; IV(2005)ACC603; 2005ACJ831; 2005(1)MPHT486; 2005(1)MPLJ372

..... the tort-feasors who is proceeded against is to recover the amount from the other tort-feasor. the liability of inter se tort-feasors can be decided to avoid the multifariousness of the proceedings. however, while considering the case of manjula devi bhuta (supra) it is held in para 6-a of the judgment that while referring to the decision of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2004 (HC)

Kerala Community Development Extension Officers Association Vs. State ...

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Sep-17-2004

Reported in : [2005(104)FLR275]; 2004(3)KLT940

..... for allotting the next l/3rd to members belonging to other departments because the duties to be performed by the b.d.o's. in the development department are so multifarious the officers from different sources having rich and varied experience are required to man such posts. that being so, no member of the service can legitimately say that a major .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2004 (HC)

Amar Singh Thukral, S/O Shri Joumphi Ram, Vs. Sandeep Chhatwal, S/O Sh ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jul-05-2004

Reported in : II(2004)ACC826; 2005ACJ1187; 112(2004)DLT478; 2004(75)DRJ553

..... at rs.10,000/- per annum for some and rs.12,000/- per annum for others was grossly low. in spite of the absence of any data but considering the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, the august supreme court was of the view that their services should be quantified at rs.3,000/- per month ..... the deceased was gainfully employed for six months in a year, the court estimated her contribution to the household, as a housewife, at rs.10,000/- per annum for rendering multifarious services to the family. to this amount, the court added her income of rs.12,000/- per annum form gainful employment for six months in a year, and after applying ..... higher stratum of society and it was in those circumstances that the august supreme court had taken an amount of rs.3,000/- per month as the value of the multifarious services rendered by a housewife in the absence of any other evidence. it was held that the observations of the august supreme court couldn't be applied to the facts .....

Tag this Judgment!

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