Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 528 results (0.103 seconds)

Sep 19 2001 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Suresh J. Thanawala and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-19-2001

Reported in : JT2001(7)SC668; 2001(6)SCALE401; (2001)8SCC185; 2002(1)LC43(SC)

..... an order dated 17th january, 2000 has been dismissed. by the order dated 17th january, 2000 the court has, exercising powers under order vii rule 11 (d) of the code of civil procedure, rejected the plaint is being barred by limitation.4. briefly stated the facts are as follows:the subject matter of the suit involves large areas of land situated in and around mumbai ..... . respondents/defendants filed notice of motion no. 399 of 1999 praying for rejection of the plaint filed under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. this prayer was based upon section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code which, inter alia, provides as follows:20 ... (4) any suit in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any ..... . the collector of mumbai purporting to act under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code passed an order dated 22nd june, 1995 holding that the lands in question belong ..... rejected by the order dated 17th january, 2000. the appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. undoubtedly, in the plaint, the appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation as prescribed under section 20 of the maharashtra land revenue code. however, the learned solicitor general submitted that the main relief is for a declaration that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2001 (HC)

Maheshpur Tea and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mantala Tea Co. Ltd. and or ...

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-01-2001

..... or revision that a suit or appeal was not properly valued for jurisdictional purposes.- (1) notwithstanding anything in section 578 of the code of civil procedure, an objection that by reason of the over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit or appeal a court of first instance or lower ..... in meenakshi sundaram chettiar v. venkatachalam chettiar, air 1979 sc 989, the supreme court held that order 7, rule 11, cpc, casts a duty on the court to reject a plaint where the relief claimed is undervalued, and if on the materials available before it, the court is satisfied that the value ..... of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is undervalued, the plaint is liable to be rejected. the supreme court further observed in the said case that it is therefore necessary that the plaintiff should take care that the valuation ..... where it appears to the court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively undervalued the court can examine the valuation and revise the same. in sujir keshav nayak v. sujir ganesh nayak, air 1992 ..... by the plaintiff cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. both mr. goswami and mr. chattarjee submitted that had the suit been valued properly, the plaint would have been returned for filing in the appropriate court having pecuniary jurisdiction and against the decree passed by such appropriate court the appellant would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 2001 (HC)

M.V. sea Success I Vs. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and I ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-05-2001

Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537

..... the suit and takes away a vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the defendant.(2) an order rejecting the plaint.(3) an order refusing leave to defend the suit in an action under order 37, code of civil procedure.(4) an order rescinding leave of the trial judge granted by him under clause 12 of the letters patent.(5) an ..... maintainability of letters patent appeal. the submission of mr. pratap is that the order passed by the learned single judge refusing to reject the plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action under order 7, rule 11(a) of code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) is not appealable as it is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters ..... actually according to law, on the allegations contained in the plaint, defendant no. 2 was agent of the union of india or not. mere formal allegation ..... on a meaningful and not formal reading of a plaint it is manifest that the plaint is vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue trial court should exercise its power under order vii, rule 11, code of civil procedure, and should reject the plaint. so it is meaningful reading of the plaint which is required. it is to be seen if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2001 (SC)

Raj NaraIn SarIn (Dead) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Laxmi Devi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-24-2001

Reported in : (2002)10SCC501

..... , is set out below: 11. rejection of plaint.the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the ..... . leave granted. 2. in an application under order 7 rule 11, read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, learned additional district judge, agra, by his order dated 23-10-1992, rejected the plaint. learned judge in coming to such a conclusion of rejection did place strong reliance on a decision of this court in the case of t. arivandandam v. t ..... exercise its power under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled since bogus litigation ought to be shot down at the earliest stage. incidentally, order 7 rule 11 as engrafted in the code of civil procedure envisages four specific cases for rejection of the plaint. order 7 rule 11, for the sake of convenience .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2001 (HC)

Anil Gupta and ors. Vs. J.K. Gupta and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-29-2001

Reported in : [2002]110CompCas610(P& H)

..... and this being the legal position, the suit could not he and thus the order of trial court dismissing the application under rules 10 and 11 of order vii, code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint, is liable to be set aside. in this regard, he has placed reliance on punjab state electricity board v. ashwani kumar, jt 1997 (5) sc 182, ammonia supplies ..... (senior division), jalandhar where the suit is pending under order 7 rules 10 and 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint inter-alia contending that the jurisdiction of civil court is expressly and impliedly barred under the law of indian companies act 1956 especially when company petition filed by the applicants is pending before the company law board ..... (sr. division), jallandhar whereby application of the petitioners under order vii rules 1 and 11 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure for rejection of plaint was dismissed.2. succintly slating, facts of the case are that m/s. standard electricals limited was originaly incorporated on 10.1.1958 as 'indo asian traders private limited' under ..... the cases under the various special acts where jurisdiction of civil court is not specifically barred.23. in view of the above discussion, this civil revision is allowed, application moved by the petitioners under order 7 rules 10 and 11 of the code of civil procedure is allowed and trial court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for being presented before the company .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2001 (HC)

CamlIn Private Limited Vs. National Pencil Industries

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-26-2001

Reported in : 96(2002)DLT8

..... framed. the suit as filed, and the documents filed along with the plaint, do not disclose a cause of action against the defendants and the plaint is liable to be rejected. the injunction prayed for is refused and the plaint is rejected under provisions of order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, as the same discloses no cause of action.'7. appeal was admitted ..... for hearing on 3rd february, 1986 and on the application filed under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc notice was issued ..... plaintiff as they do not infringe the alleged trade mark, camlin flora. thereafter he proceeded not only to dismiss the application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc but also rejected the plaint and observed:-'in view of my findings, not only the plaintiffs are not entitled to the injunction which they are not entitled to maintain the suit as brought and ..... replication was also filed by the plaintiff. it appears that when application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 cpc came up for consideration, after hearing arguments, learned single judge proceeded not only to dismiss the application but also proceeded to reject the plaint.5. learned single judge after setting out the facts of the case in detail made observations that a mechanically .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2001 (HC)

District Red Cross Society Vs. Joginder Pal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-14-2001

Reported in : AIR2002P& H5

..... hon'ble supreme court held, after considering the provisions of section 370 to 390 of the indian succession act as well as section 11 of the code of civil procedure, that any adjudication under part x does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceedings.10. ..... succession certificate, he reliedupon smt. swarni v. smt. inder kaur and others reported as jt 1996(7) sc 380.'8. hon'ble supreme court rejected the submission and held that finding recorded in proceedings for the grant of succession certificate cannot bar subsequent suit. in a subsequent suit, the crucial issues ..... 2.4.85. joginder pal filed application that the plaint did not make out any case and that it should be rejected under order 7 rule 11 cpc. by an order dated 18.1.97, the trial court rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 cpc. society filed appeal which was allowed vide judgment dated ..... land in suit is situated and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief as already stated above. it was also averred in the plaint that defendant no. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant no. 5 inder kaur and said defendant no. 5 claiming herself to be ..... .' insmt. sawarni v. smt. inder kaur (supra), smt. sawarni had filed suit for declaration of title and possession. it was alleged in the plaint that one gurbax singh was the admitted owner of the land in question and he died leaving behind his widow gurdip kaur and daughters sawarni, the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 2001 (HC)

Ganga Ram Hospital Trust Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jun-01-2001

Reported in : 2001(60)DRJ549

..... peculiar facts.32. the other case in shiv kumar chadha v. municipal corporation of delhi & ors. : [1993]3scr522 . again the question of maintainability of a suit under section 9 code of civil procedure came up for consideration. the came related to remedy being sought in connection with alleged unauthorised and illegal constructions which the corporation wanted to demolish. section 347 e of the ..... case shall be, as nearly as may be in conformity with the rules relating to references to the high court contained in order xlvi of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (4) in every appeal, the costs shall be in the discretion of the court. (5) costs awarded under this section to the corporation shall be ..... its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit.' gangabai v. vijay kumar and others : [1974]3scr882 . section 9 of the code of civil procedure contains the relevant provision. the relevant portion of section 9 is reproduced as under :'9 the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits ..... reason for this. the reason is that court should not lean in favor of curtailing civil rights or inherent rights of parties. the code itself contains safeguards against frivolous suits being brought before courts. first is the power of the court to reject a plaint under order vii rule 11 cpc. next the burden is heavy on the plaintiff who brings a suit to establish .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 2001 (HC)

RiyazuddIn Ahmed S/O Mohammad Sayeed and ors. Vs. Tayyab Razak Chimtha ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-14-2001

Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR781

..... no. 448/1999 dismissing the plaintiff's appeal filed against the order passed by the 6th joint civil judge, jr. division, nagpur on 17-8-1999 rejecting the plaint under order 7, rule 11(d) of civil procedure code inter alia holding that the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of section 9 of c. ..... .7. the defendant filed an application under section 9(a) read with order 7, rule 11 of civil procedure code contending that the suit as framed is not maintainable; that the suit is not of civil nature and it is purely of religious nature and directly abrogating the defendant's right under articles 25(1 ..... so that the suit has to be entertained although it involves decision as to the religious aspect. from the allegations that are made in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiffs are having particular religious belief on the basis of holy quaran and the defendant does not have those ..... expressly or impliedly barred. (explanation i) : a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.(explanation ii) : for the purposes of ..... injunction, was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 42 of the specific relief act. the plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid orders in regular civil appeal no. 448/1999 but the appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. it is against that order .....

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!


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