Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 127 results (0.362 seconds)

Aug 14 1968 (HC)

Good Will India Limited and anr. Vs. the Union of India, New Delhi and ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-14-1968

Reported in : ILR1968Delhi462

..... on a saledeed executed in their favor by defendants 6 and 7. later, they filed an application under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure for amendment of the plaint by incorporating therein an alternative plea that in case they are nto held to be the absolute owners of the property in dispute by ..... 49) the result of the fore-going discussion is that the plaintiffs application for withdrawal of the suit is dismissed and the plaint filed by them is rejected under order 7 rule ll(d) civil procedure code the plaintiffs will also pay costs incurred sc far by defendants i to 5. order accordingly. bar to the maintainability of ..... john stanley c.j. and banerji j. that the only course open to the court was to reject the plaint under section 54(c) of the code. it may be mentioned here that sections 424 and 54(c) of the civil procedure code then in force were more or less identical with section 80 and order 7 rule 11 (d ..... john stanley c.j. and banerji j. that the only course open to the court was to reject the plaint under section 54(c)< of the code. it may be mentioned here that sections 424 and 54(c) of the civil procedure code then in force were more or less iden- tical with section 80 and order 7 rule 11 ..... be limited to cases of misguide either of parties or of the matters in contest in the suit; to cases in which a material document has been rejected because it has nto borne the proper stamp, and to cases in which there has been an erroneous valuation of the subject of the suit. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1968 (HC)

Nippani Electricity Company (Private) Ltd. (by Its Director, V. R. Pat ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-1968

Reported in : [1968(17)FLR281]; (1969)ILLJ268Kant; (1968)2MysLJ194

..... the matters specified at serial no. 10 of sch. iii for adjudication by the industrial tribunal. therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred and the plaint is liable to be rejected under order vii, rule 11(d) civil procedure code : the trial court, therefore, raised the following preliminary issue, viz., 'has this court jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration ..... is no specific provision made barring the jurisdiction of the civil court respect of industrial dispute. therefore the question is whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred in the instant case. 13. sri mulla, in his code of civil procedure, 13th edn., under the heading 'tribunal and jurisdiction of civil courts.' while observing that the question how far the ..... a suit of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant her husband, from contracting a second marriage, and such a suit was held to fall within s. 9, civil procedure code, cognizable by a civil court. it was pointed out that the hindu marriage act contains no remedy for prevention of an act of bigamy and the suit therefore not impliedly barred ..... jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts is taken away with respect to matters which entrusted to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1968 (HC)

M.A. Joseph Vs. Varadarajan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-10-1968

Reported in : (1969)2MLJ234

..... order of rejection of the plaint dated 1st september, 1967, but has chosen to file this revision against ..... two learned judges agreed, was of the view that the order rejecting the plaint was to be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the code of civil procedure and hence appealable and no revision will lie under section 115, civil procedure code. in the instant case also, the plaint was rejected. the petitioner, prudently has not filed a revision against the final ..... noticed. in the first place it is stated that as the application was rejected under order 33, rule 5 (d-1) of the code and such an order of rejection is expressly appealable under order 43, rule 1 (n), the revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is not maintainable. secondly, it is argued that the later order of the ..... court dated 1st september, 1967, being the effective order and it being one which satisfies the pre-requisites of section 2 (2), civil procedure code, the order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1968 (HC)

Jai Bhagwan Vs. Om Prakash and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-26-1968

Reported in : AIR1969P& H308

..... or section 144, civil procedure code.i would, therefore, hold that an appeal was competent against the order of the learned senior ..... filed an application under section 47 and 144, civil procedure code. the order passed on that application by the learned senior subordinate judge would be covered by the definition of 'decree' given in section 2(2) of the code of civil procedure, where it was mentioned that a decree would be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 47 ..... or inadequacy of court-fee stamp is always open to the litigant to urge.'in that case, it would be noticed, that an application under section 149 of the code of civil procedure had been made attaching the deficiency in the amount of court-fee to be affixed on the copy of the order appealed from, and under those circumstances it was held ..... the deficient amount of court-fee to be affixed on the copy of the decree or order appealed from was actually attached with the application under section 149 of the code of civil procedure, it would be a more appropriate and more satisfactory exercise of judicial discretion to allow the deficiency to be made good so that the controversy was heard on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1968 (HC)

Chinnaya Chettiar Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-23-1968

Reported in : 1970CriLJ111

..... must depend on the particular situation. while there must be something more than the past misconduct of the persons proceeded against to justify a notice being served upon him, the code does not require the information to show the particular act which is in contemplation at the time. the magistrate must be satisfied that there is a likelihood of a breach .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1968 (HC)

Rameshwarlal and ors. Vs. the Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-18-1968

Reported in : AIR1970Raj12; [1971]41CompCas635(Raj)

..... the act and the high court alone was competent to decide it so that the orders of the execution court dated december 17, . 1960 rejecting the claims or objections under order 21, rule 58 of the code of civil procedure were a nullity. the learned counsel has cited hemanga coomar mookher-jee v. m. c. chakravarty, air 1952 cal 732 and comrade bank ltd ..... claims, and not suits, and were maintainable without the payment of ad valorem court fee. the matter therefore came before the company judge again on july 26, 1962. he rejected the plaints because the court fee was not paid in time, and observed that if the applicants thought that they had a remedy by way of an application under section 45n(2 ..... dated july 19, 1965 is binding in these two cases and it has clearly been decided there that the applications filed by the applicants on december 11, 1961 were not plaints. this is quite a sufficient answer to the belated attempt to retrieve the harm voluntarily caused by the applicants to their cases. 19. in these tacts and circumstances i am ..... and decided in its judgment dated july 19, 1965 that the applications filed on december 11, 1961 were not plaints, but were claims under section 45-b of the act. as the appellants had already paid the required court fee, the order of rejection passed by the company judge was set aside in both the cases. the cases were thus 'remanded' for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1968 (HC)

Remeshwarlal and ors. Vs. the Pareek Com. Bank Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-18-1968

Reported in : 1968WLN47

..... the act and the high court alone was, competent to decide it so that the orders of the execution court dated december 17, 1960 rejecting the claims of objections under order 21 rule 58 of the code of civil procedure were a nullity. the learned counsel has cited hemenga coomar mookherjee and ors. v. m.c. chakraverty a.i.r. 1952 cal. 731. comrade ..... dated july 19, 1965 is binding in these two cases and ii has clearly been decided there that the applications filed by the applicants on december 11, 1961 were not plaints. this is quite a sufficient answer to the belated attempt to retrieve the harm voluntarily caused by the applicants to their cases.17. in these facts and circumstances i am ..... claims, and not suits, and were maintainable without the payment of ab-valorem court fee. the matter therefore came before the company judge again on july 26, 1962. he rejected the plaints because the court fee was hot paid in time, and observed that if the applicants thought that they had a remedy remedy by way of an application under section 42h ..... and decided in its judgment dated july 19, 1965 that the applications filed on december 11, 1961 were not plaints, but were claims under section 45b of the act. as the appellants had already paid the required court fee, the order of rejection passed by the company judge was set aside in both the case. the cases were thus remanded for disposal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 08 1968 (HC)

Kanji Mulji Kanani Vs. Manglaben Parmanand

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-08-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Guj308; (1969)GLR1011

..... , as already pointed out, such an application is not deemed to be a plaint until it has been granted. section 141 of the code has the effect only of assimilating the procedure in relation to suits to that in relation to all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. these are generally provisions which, in my opinion, are excluded by the specific provisions laid ..... that the properties are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court below. the court had, therefore, jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the plaint or to permit the withdrawal of one of the reliefs. i, therefore, reject the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 38. as all the contentions raised fail, the revision petition fails. 39. revision petition is ..... stamped, subject to the law of limitation for the time being in force. this provision is on a par with that under which a plaint improperly or insufficiently stamped is rejected under order 7, rule 11. in our opinion, the purport of order 33 is to enable a pauper to bring a suit without payment of court-fee, subject to his ..... the case of ramashrey v. pashupati, : air1968pat1 . the relevant observations are at page 3 in para 5. they are as under:-- 'the main question for consideration is whether on the rejection of the pauper application on the 18th january, 1964, the court became functus officio and whether there was nothing pending before the court and the court had no jurisdiction thereafter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1968 (HC)

Motilal and ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-20-1968

Reported in : 1968WLN206

..... written statement of a defendant shall be beard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by order xviii in the first schedule to code of civil procedure, 1908 (central act 5 of 1908).'7. it is true that the court cannot proceed with the trial of the suit without being satisfied ..... civil procedure, 1908 (central act 5 of 1908). if the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court's derision and the deficit fee shall be paid, if the plaint ..... that the court fee paid is sufficient. section 11(1) lays down that the court shall apply its mind to the question as to whether the court-fee paid is sufficient before the plaint ..... 2-68 a miscellaneous application was filed on behalf of the applicants in which it was alleged that the suit had been undervalued. this application was rejected on the finding that the suit had been properly valued. against that order the present revision application has been filed.5. on behalf of the ..... be not so amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit.(3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1968 (HC)

Union of India Through Chief Commissioner, Delhi State Vs. Sobha Singh ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-21-1968

Reported in : 5(1969)DLT464; ILR1969Delhi120

..... dass and tohers. their lordships of the supreme court have observed:- 'whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily question between the plaintiff and the state. the jurisdiction in revision exercised by high court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof. the defendant who may believe and even honestly, that ..... that the clear inference from the above observations was that where the defendant is state, as in the present case, and its objection against the insufficiency of court fee is rejected, it can question the decision by way of revision as by doing so it will be prtoecting, the revenue of the state. (13) as already discussed, the present revision petition ..... claim related and nto merely the claim made. precisely, the same contention was raised in ram kanwar's case (supra), relied upon by the learned subordinate judge. the contention was rejected. the facts in that case were that a suit was filed for a declaration for cancellation of a lease deed and as a consequential relief a prayer had been made ..... dispute and the court-fee was payable on its market value under clause (v). relying on ram kanwar and tohers v. naurang rai and tohers, (1) the learned subordinate judge rejected the contention and held that the property involved was leasehold rights and that the plaintiff was liable to pay court- fee on the value of those rights. the learned subordinate .....

Tag this Judgment!


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