Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: drat allahabad Page 1 of about 8 results (0.022 seconds)

Dec 15 2004 (TRI)

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Malwa Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : III(2006)BC54

..... period of notice under section 80 of the cpc the plaint was taken back by the appellant-bank and then again flied on the same ..... 1998 of the order sheet of the suit before the civil court, it is clear that the suit was filed on 5th december, 1997 with a prayer to waive the right of notice under section 80 of the cpc but when the same has been rejected and the plaint was ordered to be returned, then after spending the ..... december, 1997 pending and then included respondent-defendant no. 2 after expiry of the period of notice under section 80 of the cpc, but the same was not done, rather the plaint got returned and then filed afresh on 11th february, 1998 and hence the suit should be construed as filed on 11th february, ..... that necessity arose to file the suit premature because of urgency without compliance of section 80 (1) of the cpc the plaint was ordered to be returned as no urgency was found and as such the plaint was taken back from the side of the appellant-bank and it was re-filed on 11th february, 1998 ..... -operative society act vide notice dated 10th october, 1997 and also the notice was sent under section 80 of the cpc on that date. after expiry of the period of notice, the re-submitted plaint was registered before the district judge, indore and when the debts recovery tribunal was set up at jabalpur, the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2006 (TRI)

Bank of Baroda Vs. Bombay Burma Trading Co. and ors.

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : 3(2006)BC104

..... 5, 7 and 10 without filing written statement filed a petition under the said provisions of cpc asking better particulars and also for deletion of their names from the proceedings and also for rejection of plaint against them. it should be mentioned here that the bank was asked by the tribunal as claimed ..... stage, the contesting defendants respondents had not filed their written statement and in such position, there was no scope to consider such applications of rejection of plaint or deleting of some of the defendants without ascertaining the liability, whether existing or not.6. in support of the contention of the appellant ..... controverted by the contesting respondents. it is too early to make a finding that the defendant nos. 3 to 11 have been misjoined in the plaint. moreover, such finding has been made, when defendant nos. 3 and 11 has never made any assertions regarding their non-liability. in such circumstances ..... of the contesting respondents, i have perused the records and find that although some sort of surmises were there in the different paragraphs of the plaint, but collusion have been asserted from the very beginning against all the defendants. moreover, in the objection filed against the applicants of the contesting ..... and order 6 rule 5 and order 7 rule 11 of the cpc read with section 151 of the cpc have been allowed and appellant bank was asked to delete the names of defendant nos, 3 to 11 from the plaint by filing amendment petition and for misjoinder of defendant nos. 4, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2006 (TRI)

Hyper Chemicals and Cosmetics Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : II(2006)BC184

..... 17-a for the purpose of additional evidence. the principle relating to additional evidence is totally different than provision of order 6 rule 17 of the cpc relating to amendment of pleadings.regarding due diligence i have already stated that the delay although not being explained from the side of the respondent, the ..... are governed under order 6 rule 17 of the c.p.c. amendment under that order and rule had been made by the amendment of the cpc in year 2002 and a proviso had been added creating a bar in amendment of the pleadings after the trial being commenced. here in the present ..... delay in seeking amendment, the appellant should be compensated for such delay and of their convenience, if any.6. in the result, the appeal is rejected and a part of the impugned order regarding amendment is hereby allowed on condition of payment of rs. 1,000/- from the side of the respondent-bank ..... .a. no. 507/2000. once the case was decided in favour of the respondent bank and the counter claim made by the defendant-appellants have been rejected. the appeal was filed against such judgment and order before this appellate tribunal, which was numbered as appeal no. r-294/03. the then chairperson of ..... of the case. air 1971 sc 2177 relates to amendment being sought in the plaint regarding some other matter, when remand order was restricted to a fresh decision on the ground of resjudicata and hence the apex court had rejected such amendment, but in the present case i have already stated that remand order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2007 (TRI)

Shrimal Plantation and ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC155

..... grounds taken in it was not maintainable. his further submission is that under order 29 rule 1 of the cpc principal officer of the bank has authority to sign the plaint and the provisions of s.b.i. act (act nos. 76 to 78 sections) authorize the principal officer to do ..... review taken from the side of the present appellant do not fall within the limited scope of review provided under order 47 rule 1 of the cpc. these grounds arc similar to the grounds of appeal filed in the instant case considering all these facts and above rulings when there are mala ..... grounds available for the appeal were taken in the review application. he has further pointed out that considering the provisions of order 47 of the cpc, the present appeal against the final judgment is not maintainable particularly when deliberately review application was filed knowing fully well that the review on the ..... no.r-616/2005 is against the judgment passed in original application and appeal no. r-615/2005 has been filed against order rejecting review application.3. learned tribunal rejected the application for review also and feeling aggrieved against this judgment passed on the original application as well as on application for review, ..... the time taken for prosecuting the application for review will not be excluded for making an appeal within time on the ground of bona fide prosecution of civil proceeding. in this ruling there is a reference of other cases also i.e. rulings, mahmood ali khan v. wazid ali khan a.i.r. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2007 (TRI)

indo Irish Food Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC128

..... voluminous as well as unnecessary and repetition of the earlier pleadings contained in the written statement.3. the learned presiding officer, d.r.t., jabalpur rejected the application for the amendment by passing the impugned order. hence, this appeal.4. the learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset ..... foods ltd., against an order dated 5th october, 2006 passed by learned presiding officer, d.r.t., jabalpur in original application no. 129/2002 rejecting the application for the amendment in the written statement.2. by moving an amendment application the appellant prayed before d.r.t., jabalpur in original ..... in the impugned order do not help the appellant in the instant case because the position of order vi, rule 17 before the amendment of civil procedure code by act 22 of 2002 was different than that of the present position. on this very point in the ruling, salem advocate bar association, ..... party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. he has challenged the observations of the learned presiding officer that there was the repetition of the same pleadings in the form of amendment sought ..... 1267, wherein hon'ble supreme court has observed that amendment of plaint is within the discretion of the court, it is not to be refused on technical grounds. it is also observed in that ruling that rules of procedure are intended to be the handmaid to the administration of justice. a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2005 (TRI)

S.P. Kanodia and ors. Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : I(2006)BC228

..... section (2) of section 22, specific cases have been mentioned wherein the tribunal and the appellate tribunal shall be guided by the code of civil procedure and shall act as a civil court. sub-clause (g) of sub-section (2) provides adjudication regarding setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for ..... fees have been prescribed for an appeal against an interlocutory order in a pending proceeding or in rejection of a revival petition, the fees prescribed for application under rule 7 to the d.r.t. (procedure) rules shall be applicable and not otherwise. (xvi) various other judgments have also been referred ..... 1196/2000 whereby prayer for appointment of handwriting expert for comparing of the signature of late saraswati devi with that of the bank documents have been rejected, which has now been challenged. this appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18th march, 2002 passed in original application no. 82/ ..... order, but now it has been settled that appeal against interlocutory order is also maintainable, if the same order is not a formal procedural order alone and in that way perhaps legislature has not thought of prescribing any fees for the purpose of entertaining an appeal against an interlocutory ..... act. the order dated 9th march, 2005 passed in t.a. no. 507 /2000 by the d.r.t. concerned, whereby amendment of plaint has been allowed, although objections were there on various grounds during the pendency of the writ petition before the hon'ble high court and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 2006 (TRI)

North Eastern Carrying Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : IV(2006)BC121

..... act) for setting aside ex pane judgment delivered on 20th september, 2000 in t.a. no. 386/98 has been rejected.2. the brief facts are that respondent-c.b.i. filed a civil suit: for recovery of rs. 10,78,162/- along with interest, cost, etc. against respondent no. 2-jiyaji ..... stated that in two other cases of two different banks the appellants with similar allegation were made parties but ultimately the same presiding officer had rejected the claim of those banks against the appellant. as the restoration petition is hopelessly barred by limitation for more than a year, a petition under ..... judge of high court, madhya pradesh and official liquidator was appointed and at the instance of the respondent bank amendment was made in the original plaint/origtnal application to bring the official liquidator on records. at that time learned presiding officer asked for service of notice on all the defendants under ..... was filed by the appellant along with the restoration petition. there were also averments regarding non service of summons in proper form as copy of plaint, documents annexed, evidence in affidavit had never been sent to the appellants and the appellant corporation have been transformed into a company and as per ..... had the knowledge of the proceedings while it was pending before the civil court and in their presence the case was transferred to the tribunal. in that way, under the amended proviso of the order 9 rule 13 of the cpc which is para materia the same as that of section 22(2 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2006 (TRI)

Kamta Nath Pandey and anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Reported in : I(2007)BC1

..... a later year and date. be that it may, the appellants were pressing through their advocate for supply of statement of accounts and the said petition was rejected only when the appellants' counsel filed a petition for dismissal of the claim case for non-supply of the proper statement of accounts, but there was also ..... and faith on their advocate. it further appears that the copy of judgment had also not been sent to the appellants as required under the d.r.t. procedure rules.4. appeal no. r-311/03 has been filed by the same appellants against the order dated 13th may, 2003 passed in m.a. no. ..... a petition on the next dale i.e. 2nd august, 2002 that the statement of accounts as being annexed to the plaint were supplied to the appellants' counsel only on 31st july, 2002 and as such adjournment was sought for two weeks to file written statement but that was ..... pendency of the proceeding before the d.r.t., allahabad after its transfer from the d.r.t., jabalpur. the case was originally filed before the civil court by the bank for recovery of rs. 57,49,864.15 together with contracted rate of interest for pendente lite and future along with cost and ..... the appellants had appeared before the tribunal at allahabad when the case was transferred from the d.r.t., jabalpur. the original suit was filed before the civil judge. mirzapur by the respondent bank claiming rs. 1,29,13,369.64 together with interest at the contracted rate pendente lite and future and also with .....

Tag this Judgment!


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