Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Year: 2001 Page 2 of about 35 results (0.131 seconds)

Mar 26 2001 (SC)

Syndicate Bank Vs. Mr. Prabha D. Naik and anr. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-26-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC1968; II(2001)BC304(SC); [2001]105CompCas385(SC); JT2001(4)SC133; (2001)2MLJ97(SC); 2001(3)SCALE53; (2001)4SCC713; [2001]2SCR714; 2001(2)LC1031(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1

..... obviously was on an inspiration from the provisions of section 3 of the goa, daman and diu (extension of the code of civil procedure and the arbitration), act, 1965 by which both the code of civil procedure, 1908 and the arbitration act, 1940 were extended to the union territory of goa, daman and diu and it ..... much of the law in force in the union territory of goa, daman and diu as corresponds to the code of civil procedure 1908 or the arbitration act, 1940. this act also neither expressly nor by implication repeals the provisions relating to limitation contained in the portuguese ..... of action under consideration arose outside the portuguese law, no exception can be taken to the judgment and decree of the civil judge, senior division, panaji as regards the rejection of plaint being barred by limitation. 3. incidentally, the only ground of challenge in the appeal before the high court also pertained ..... in paragraph 25 of the report as below:'25. we may now summarise our conclusions in this regard. (i) provisions in the portuguese civil code or other codes in force in this union territory relating to the periods of limitation are local laws within the meaning of section 29(2) of the ..... to the issue of limitation. both the learned civil judge and the high court however, relied on a decision of the bombay high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2001 (SC)

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-24-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC2552; (2001)3CALLT55(SC); JT2001(5)SC578; 2001(4)SCALE495; (2001)6SCC534; [2001]3SCR1129; 2001(3)SLJ432(SC)

..... decree holder-appellant has challenged the judgment rendered by patna high court whereby revision application has been allowed, order passed by the executing court, rejecting objection under section 47 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') to the executability of decree passed in title suit no. 115 of 1977, set aside and objection allowed.3.plaintiff-appellant filed suit ..... 2 (respondent no.3) who was secretary of governing body, ganga singh college, terminating the services of plaintiff, was illegal. according to the case of the plaintiff disclosed in the plaint, he was appointed as routine-cum-examination clerk in the said college, which was affiliated to bihar university, by principal of the college on 8.1.1977 which was subsequently ..... infirmity or substantial question of law arises, but such an error must suffer with the vice of error of jurisdiction. of course, the revisional powers exercisable under the code of criminal procedure and likewise in similar statutes stand on entirely different footing and much wider as there the court can go into correctness, legality or propriety of the order and regularity ..... posed, but before doing so, for better appreciation of the point involved, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of order 22 rule 10 of the code which runs thus:-'10. procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. --(1) in other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 2001 (SC)

Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma (Dead) by Lrs and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-2001

Reported in : JT2001(5)SC537; RLW2002(3)SC424; (2001)9SCC521

..... stage, seethamma filed r.e.p.no.104/1963 under order xxi rule 53 of the code of civil procedure alleging that the property was not liable to be attached as the same we as obtained by collusion and exercising fraud. the application of seetliamma was thus rejected on 16.11.1964. seethamma and unggappa raj filed o.s. no.2/1965 on 3 ..... jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence. in such a situation the high court might have come to a different conclusion. but the high court in exercise of power under section 100 cpc cannot interfere with the erroneous finding of fact howsoever the gross error seeing to be. we. therefore, do not find any rylerit in the contention of the learned counsel for ..... the appellant.3. it was then urged that there being no allegation in the plaint that ex a-39 pronote was sham and bogus document, the first appellate court committed serious mistake of law in holding that ex.a-39 was a sham and fraudulent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2001 (SC)

Hari Shankar JaIn Vs. Sonia Gandhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-12-2001

Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)313; AIR2001SC3689; JT2001(7)SC629; 2001(6)SCALE233; (2001)8SCC233

..... of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the high court, as nearly as may be, inn accordance with the procedure applicable under the code of civil procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. the provisions of the indian evidence act, 1872 are made applicable in all respects to the trial of ..... true' to their knowledge, without indicating the source. such pleadings cannot amount to disclosing any cause of action and are required to be rejected/dismissed under order vii rule 11 ipc.33. to sum up, we are of the opinion that a plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of india and ..... -compliance with the provisions of the constitution' is in our opinion sufficiently wide to cover such cases where the question is not one of improper acceptance or rejection of the nomination by the returning officer, but there is a fundamental disability in the candidate to stand for election at all.'18. sub-section (7) ..... is the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. to enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should loot at the ..... plaint and nothing else. courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2001 (SC)

K. Raj and anr. Vs. Muthamma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-17-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC1720; 2001(3)SCALE386; (2001)6SCC279; 2001(2)LC1138(SC)

..... of the first husband of valliamma was given by the defendant. the first appellate court also observed 'strong and mature evidence has to be adduced to reject the case of the plaintiff that she is daughter of anthony'. it is also observed that the plaintiff was not asked to meet the case that ..... appellate court. it may perhaps then amount to mis-reading of the document or wrong interpretation of the documents. we have also noticed that in the plaint the plaintiff has described herself and the defendant only as daughters of valliamma. father's name in respect of none has been disclosed. it has ..... that the case involves a substantial question of law. it would be appropriate to reproduce section 100 cpc which reads as under:'100. second appeal. -- (1) save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the ..... anthony ummini had none of his parents living nor any other brothers or sisters except the plaintiff and the defendant.4. in paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff and the defendant are sisters and that the plaintiff is entitled to one-half of the property, whereas defendant is ..... release of the property from ananthan. in the year 1978, a suit was filed by kannamma impleading muthamma as defendant with a prayer for redemption of plaint schedule properties, basing her claim on the facts that on the death of anthony ummini her brother, the two sisters namely, the plaintiff and the defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2001 (SC)

V. Pechimuthu Vs. Gowrammal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-01-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC2446; 2001(5)ALT1(SC); JT2001(6)SC162; (2002)1MLJ1(SC); 2001(4)SCALE650; (2001)7SCC617

..... 1981. it appears that the respondent had jettisoned the case of an oral agreement at the trial. the learned subordinate judge also rejected the appellant's case in the plaint in so far as he had claimed credit for the various sums which he alleged that the respondent had failed to pay under ..... court. the issue is whether the high court was justified in setting aside a concurrent finding of fact within the limits prescribed by section 100 of the civil procedure code. 2. let us consider the facts. 3. the appellant was the owner of certain property. the property was tenanted and mortgaged. by a deed ..... had neither made any counter claim or set off in the suit nor paid any court fees in respect of such claim. the district judge also rejected the case of the respondent that she had paid a sum of rs. 4495/- to the tenants of the property. in the circumstances, the ..... the appellant had expressed his redlines and willingness to perform the agreement by paying the consideration fixed not once but repeatedly in several paragraphs of the plaint. the high court erred in overlooking the fact that the appellant had never said that the consideration for re-conveyance under the agreement was less ..... the suit properties. the readiness and willingness of the appellant to perform the agreement dated 4th may 1973 was again reiterated in paragraph 11 of the plaint. the appellant has ultimately prayed for a decree :- `directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 14 2001 (SC)

Ashok Nagar Welfare Association and anr. Vs. R.K. Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2001

Reported in : AIR2002SC335; JT2001(Suppl2)SC24; 2001(8)SCALE503; (2002)1SCC749; 2002(1)LC163(SC)

..... . 393/264 in adarsh nagar of village chilla saroda bangar, delhi - 110091.'7. the high court then discussed as to how the mandatory provisions of cpc in regard to service of summons, viz. order 5 rule 18, order 5 rule 15 etc. were not complied with. the high court concluded:-'as such ..... order to safeguard the land in dispute. it is also alleged that the defendants were inducted into possession unauthorisedly by certain persons named int he plaint who were said to be the predecessors in title and therefore the defendants were trespassers of the disputed land. it is then alleged that the ..... defendants in the suit will now will be deemed to have been duly served. they will be supplied by the plaintiffs with copies of the plaint and other documents, as are required to be served on them on or before the day when the parties will paper before learned single judge. ..... be unauthorised occupants of plots/houses located in khasra no. 393/264 situated in ashok nagar (chilla village). inter alia it was alleged in the plaint that the members of the association (some of whom are the defendants) jointly and severally agreed to relinquish their respective rights in favour of the ..... orders were obtained by the plaintiff for fresh summons to the unserved defendants. straight-away two separate applications aforementioned under order 5 rule 20 of the code were filed.the first application (i.a. 12267/91) averred that some of the defendant had not been served till date despite repeated summons issued .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2001 (SC)

Hukam Chand Vs. Om Chand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-22-2001

Reported in : (2001)10SCC715

..... on record the terms and conditions of the transfer, which has not been done. in the absence of any application under order 22 rule 10 cpc having been filed by the appellant tenant and in the absence of the relevant transfer deeds having been brought on record, we are handicapped in determining ..... notice being served, the tenant tendered the amount of rent and therefore, by order dated 25-6-1958 the rent controller directed the application to be rejected solely on the ground that in view of the arrears of rent having been tendered, the cause of action, which had arisen to the landlord, ..... . 1996/189 (boundaries described).3. the trial court found the plaintiff om chand, the landlord, entitled partly to the reliefs prayed for in the plaint and directed the defendant tenants to settle the amount of compensation of the structure on the land in suit mutually with the plaintiff om chand within three ..... lease is not a rented land as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the act. the suit was, therefore, maintainable before the civil court.8. it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that prior to the filing of the present suit, the respondent landlord himself had ..... as the act for short), the suit for eviction could have been filed only before the rent controller and therefore, the suit filed before the civil court was not maintainable and should have been dismissed on that ground alone; secondly, that the plaintiff-respondent having parted with his interest in the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2001 (SC)

M/S. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. M/S. Amrit Lal and Co. and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-27-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC3580; 93(2001)DLT164(SC); JT2001(7)SC477; 2001(5)SCALE509; (2001)8SCC397

..... the suit the appellant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc to reject the plaint as parallel proceedings cannot be continued both before the rent controller and the civil court. the trial court on 18.10.1997 rejected appellant's aforesaid application. aggrieved by that the appellant filed revision ..... , it would not affect the right conferred on the tenants under the repealed provisions of the rent control act. this submission was rejected by this court. the court held: 'we are unable to uphold this contention for a number of reasons. prior to the ..... already filed a suit appellant prayed that this eviction petition be dismissed or in the alternative its proceedings be stayed. however, the rent controller rejected such a request by his order dated 23.11.1992 relying on the ratio of d.c. bhatia & ors. vs. union of ..... before the high court.8. as aforesaid, in the meanwhile the appellant moved an application before the additional rent controller under section 9 read with section 151 cpc ..... to find which court would have the jurisdiction. whether the court of rent controller under delhi rent control act or ordinary civil court having jurisdiction over the subject matter in issue? as discipline and culture in every walk of life is essential for smooth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2001 (SC)

Shyam Sunder and anr. Vs. Ram Kumar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-31-2001

Reported in : AIR2001SC2472; JT2001(6)SC94; 2001(4)SCALE710; (2001)8SCC24

..... not the case here . we have already held that there is no ambiguity in substituted section 158 and, therefore, this decision has no application in the present case. we accordingly reject the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the amending act whereby new section 15 of the act has ..... follows:'(i)a statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such as construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly ..... earlier noticed that an appellate court is entitled to take into consideration subsequent event taking place during pendency of appeal and a court in an appropriate case permits amendment of plaint or written statement as the case may be but such amendment is permitted in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and not where such amendment causes prejudice to the plaintiff ..... .1985. the plaintiffs/respondents herein claimed preferential right to pre-empt the sale in favour of defendant-appellants on the ground that they are co-shares by means of a civil suit laid before the sub-judge, 1st class, gohana. in the said suit, issues were framed and the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!


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