Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Court: supreme court of india Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 110 results (0.136 seconds)

Nov 29 2013 (SC)

M/S Paragon Rubber Industries Vs. M/S Pragati Rubber Mills and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-29-2013

..... , it prescribes an additional ground for attracting the jurisdiction of the court over and above the normal grounds as laid down in section 20 of the code of civil procedure, 1908. mr. dave also pointed out that there is an earlier judgment of this court in exphar sa vs. eupharma laboratories ltd.[3]. in ..... act ). the suit is pending in the trial court. the defendant filed i.a. no.322 of 2004, under order vii rule xi cpc, with a prayer for rejection of plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. the trial court dismissed the application on 22nd march, 2004, with the observations that the issue of jurisdiction ..... that a composite suit under the 1957 act and 1958 act was not maintainable, the high court erred in permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint rather than rejecting the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.8. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.9. it is submitted by ..... had the suit been filed for violation of copy right alone, the court at kottayam could validly entertain the same. by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as that the suit will be maintainable before the district court, kottayam, no error was committed by the high court.23. in view of the ..... the supreme court referred to above. accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside. the plaintiff is given liberty to amend the plaint, so that the suit will be maintainable before the district court, kottayam, in the light of the principles laid down by the supreme court in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2013 (SC)

Govt. of Kerala and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-02-2013

..... time to time.5. in the said suit, i.a. nos. iii & iv were filed on behalf of the present appellants under order vii rule 11 of the cpc praying for rejection of the plaint.6. the said applications filed by the appellants had been heard by the trial court and ultimately, by an order dated 3rd september, 2001, the said applications praying ..... for rejection of the plaint had been rejected.7. being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd september, 2001, whereby the applications praying for rejection of the plaint had been rejected, the appellants had filed civil revision petition no.5189 of 2001, which was also rejected by the high court by an order dated 20th january, 2005 and ..... the said order has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.8. the trial court had rejected the i.a. nos. iii & iv praying ..... of 2005) govt. of kerala & ors. .....appellants versus sudhir kumar sharma & ors. ..respondents judgment 1 anil r. dave, j.1. leave granted.2. being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in civil revision petition no.5189 of 2001 dated 20th january, 2005 by the high court of karnataka, this appeal has been filed by the government of kerala & other officials.3. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2013 (SC)

State Bank of India Vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-22-2013

..... judgment k.s. radhakrishnan, j.leave granted.2. we are, in this case, concerned with the applicability of order 2 rule 2 of the code of civil procedure (for short the cpc ) in respect of two suits filed by the respondent, one in the original side of the delhi high court and another before the district court ..... court, delhi.4. the bank and its officers then filed an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc in suit no.288/03/04 of 2003 before the district court, delhi for rejection of the plaint in the suit for damages on the ground that the same is barred by the provisions of order ..... high court. the application under order 7 rule 11 was, therefore, allowed, holding that the latter suit was barred under order 2 rule 2, cpc and plaint was accordingly rejected.5. the respondent, aggrieved by the said order, filed rfa no.490 of 2006 before the delhi high court. the high court took the ..... 2 rule 2 cpc. the district court elaborately heard the matter and after perusing the plaints, averments in both the suits as well as the ..... mentioned legal principle, let us examine whether the high court has correctly applied the legal principle in the instant case.13. we have gone through the plaints and the averments contained in both the suits in extenso and also the reliefs claimed in both the suits. respondents had availed of various credit facilities .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2013 (SC)

Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha Vs. Tata Engineerng and Locomotive Co.Ltd.A ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-18-2013

..... code of civil procedure 1908, (hereinafter referred to as cpc ) without considering any issue involved therein or taking note of the pleadings in the plaint itself. b. aggrieved, the appellant took out a notice of motion bearing no.503 of 2004 in the said suit for setting aside ex parte decree dated 12.11.2003, however, it stood rejected ..... far no written statement is filed. therefore, there shall be decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants under order viii rule10 of the code of civil procedure for a sum of rs.9,99,388.30 with interest on the amount of rs.5,66,000/- at 12% p.a. from the date ..... of the suit till realization and costs. prayer (a) only of the plaint is granted in the above terms. decree be drawn up accordingly. 9. the ..... . hira lal somani, air 200.sc 911.this court while reiterating a similar view observed that a decree under order viii, rule 10 cpc should not be passed unless the averments made in plaint are established. in the facts and circumstances of a case, the court must decide the issue of limitation also, if so, involved. ..... by the defendant, the court should be little cautious in proceeding under order viii, rule 10, cpc. before passing the judgment against the defendant it must ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly by passed in favour of the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 2013 (SC)

Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-25-2013

..... application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant against the decision of the learned sub judge who rejected the suit of the appellant for non- payment of court fee?.4. what order?. answer to point no.1 8. section 149 of the civil procedure code prescribes a discretionary power which empowers the court to allow a party to make up the deficiency of ..... filing the suit. the court of sub judge, neyyattinkara granted injunction in favour of the appellant restraining the respondents from carrying out new construction activities including the parts of the plaint schedule property until further orders.6. the court of sub judge, neyyattinkara heard the application for extension of time sought by the appellant for paying the balance court fee. however ..... continuing. the national commission completely ignored the fact that the appellant is not well educated and she had throughout relied upon the legal advice tendered to her. she first filed civil suit which, as mentioned above, was dismissed due to non payment of deficient court fees. she then filed writ petition before the high court and special leave petition before this ..... .p. power corporation ltd. and ors.[3]., it was held as under: 15. in the application filed by her for condonation of delay, the appellant made copious references to the civil suit, the writ petition and the special leave petition filed by her and the fact that the complaint filed by her was admitted after considering the issue of limitation. she .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2013 (SC)

Ongc Ltd. Vs. M/S. Modern Construction and Co.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2013

..... understood to have been passed in view of the provisions of order vii rule 10 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as cpc ) and not a case of transfer of a suit from the court at mehsana to the civil court, surat. once the plaint is presented after being returned from the court having no jurisdiction, it is to be treated as ..... can be held to be continuation of the earlier suit after such presentation.9. in hanamanthappa & anr. v. chandrashekharappa & ors., air1997sc1307 this court reiterated a similar view rejecting the contention that once the plaint is returned by the court having no jurisdiction and is presented before a court of competent jurisdiction, it must be treated to be continuation of the earlier suit ..... benefit of interest on the amount from the date of filing the suit in mehsana court. the appellate court in its order dated 12.3.2010 reiterated a similar view rejecting the appeal of the respondent observing that a public undertaking cannot be penalised for the mistake committed by the plaintiff by choosing a wrong forum . before the high court when ..... presented the plaint before the civil court at surat on 3.2.1999.18. the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 clearly provided for future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. the executing court vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 rejected the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2013 (SC)

Smt. Neena Vikram Verma Vs. Balmukund Singh Gautam and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2013

..... upon which read as follows:- 12. learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the code of civil procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. in substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, ..... single judge of the madhya pradesh high court (bench at indore) allowing the application filed by the first respondent under order 6 rule 16 of code of civil procedure (cpc) being i.a no. 7248/2012 for striking off certain pleadings from the recrimination petition filed by the appellant herein. facts leading to this ..... ) scc 137 which is to the following effect:- 18. as noted supra, order 7 rule 11 does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint. order 6 rule 16 of the code is relevant in this regard. it deals with striking out pleadings. it has three clauses permitting the court at any ..... submissions of both the counsel. as can be seen, the application under order 7 rule 11 is required to be decided on the face of the plaint or the petition, whether any cause of action is made out or not. once it is accepted by a party by consent that a particular ..... to strike out those pleadings which were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. as against that, order 7 rule 11 dealt with a situation where a plaint did not disclose any cause of action. mr. rao submitted that the supreme court order dated 2.2.2012 did not bar filing of the application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2013 (SC)

Neena Vikram Verma Vs. Balmukund Singh Gautam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2013

..... upon which read as follows:- 12. learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the code of civil procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. in substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, ..... single judge of the madhya pradesh high court (bench at indore) allowing the application filed by the first respondent under order 6 rule 16 of code of civil procedure (cpc) being i.a no.7248/2012 for striking off certain pleadings from the recrimination petition filed by the appellant herein. facts leading to this petition ..... ) scc 13.which is to the following effect:- 18. as noted supra, order 7 rule 11 does not justify rejection of any particular portion of the plaint. order 6 rule 16 of the code is relevant in this regard. it deals with striking out pleadings . it has three clauses permitting the court at any ..... submissions of both the counsel. as can be seen, the application under order 7 rule 11 is required to be decided on the face of the plaint or the petition, whether any cause of action is made out or not. once it is accepted by a party by consent that a particular ..... to strike out those pleadings which were unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. as against that, order 7 rule 11 dealt with a situation where a plaint did not disclose any cause of action. mr. rao submitted that the supreme court order dated 2.2.2012 did not bar filing of the application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2013 (SC)

Jitendra Kumar Khan and ors. Vs. Peerless Gen.Finance and Invest.Co.Lt ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-06-2013

..... of law it is quite clear that equitable set-off is different than the legal set-off; that it is independent of the provisions of the code of civil procedure; that the mutual debts and credits or cross-demands must have arisen out of the same transaction or to be connected in the nature and circumstances ..... the particulars of the debt sought to be set-off. (2) effect of set-off. the written statement shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross-suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in respect both of the original claim and of the set-off; ..... the learned single judge rejected the application for amendment.6. dissatisfied with the order of rejection an appeal was preferred and the division bench vide order dated 17.6.2004 came to hold that the claim put ..... and the spacious plea that the amendment should be treated as equitable set-off was not acceptable. emphasis was laid on the relief sought in the plaint which pertained to declaration and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the commission and incentives payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. being of this view, ..... to cause an enquiry pertaining to the damages suffered by the plaintiffs and pass a decree for such a sum.4. after issuance of notice of the plaint which was presented on 11.8.1993, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement on 12.8.1994. thereafter, on 7.4.1998, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (SC)

Gian Chand and Brothers and anr. Vs. Rattan Lal Alias Rattan Singh.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-08-2013

Reported in : 2013(1)CTC399; 2013(1)KLT67; 2013(1)SCJ601; 2013(2)SCC606; 2013(1)KCCR615; AIR2013SCW777; 2013(2)MLJ291

..... the legal principles as contained in order 8 rule 3 and 5 of the code of civil procedure. the high court had also not analysed the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant in this behalf in detail but merely rejected the same summarily stating that vague statements had been made by some witnesses. once ..... be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. rule 5 deals with specific denial and clearly lays down that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be ..... replying to the same, the defendant has said that the arguments in para 6 of the plaint are wrong and denied in view of the preliminary objections. it is apt to note that the preliminary objections pertained to bald denial of liability, ..... by the witnesses and they have been marked as exhibits without any objection. it is interesting to note that in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the plaint, it was averred that the defendant had given the acknowledgement of amount under his signature in the corresponding entry in the books of accounts. while ..... of approach.15. first, we shall deal with the onus to prove in such a case. the plaintiffs, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, have categorically asseverated that the defendant used to avail advance money from the plaintiffs with the promise to bring his agriculture produce for sale at their shop .....

Tag this Judgment!


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