Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: drat allahabad Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.022 seconds)

Jan 04 2006 (TRI)

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

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-04-2006

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

Decided on : Feb-21-2006

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!

May 25 2006 (TRI)

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

Court : DRAT Allahabad

Decided on : May-25-2006

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

Decided on : Mar-06-2006

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 //