Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rejection of plaint code of civil procedure Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 1,103 results (0.076 seconds)

Mar 04 2014 (HC)

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. T. Mathew the Se ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-04-2014

..... a written statement in this suit long back. 46. defendants no.3 has filed this notice of motion on 17th november, 2006 inter-alia praying for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, 1908 on various grounds. defendants no.3 has filed additional affidavits in this notice of motion raising additional objections in support of plea for dismissal of ..... of supreme court in case of popatand kotecha property vs. state bank of india staff association 2005 (7) scc 510 considered the issue whether a plaint can be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of code of civil procedure on the ground of limitation. paragraphs 7 to 11 of the said judgment in case of western coalfields ltd. (supra) which are relevant for the ..... in discharge of the undertaking of security given by the second respondent. the 1st respondent thereafter took out a notice of motion for rejection of the plaint purported to be under order 7 rule 11(a) of the code of civil procedure inter alia on the ground that the averments contained therein do not disclose a cause of action as the claim of unpaid insurance ..... high court is affirmed. we agree with the view taken by the trial court that a plaint cannot be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. this decision is also rendered by the two hon'ble judges and they find that plaint cannot be rejected under rule 11 since question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2014 (HC)

M/s. Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-02-2014

..... prior act of the board which would have been valid if that regulation had not been made. 19. order 7 rule 11(a) and (d) of code of civil procedure, 1908 read thus:- 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 relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff ..... order dated 7th april 2011 the learned district judge-1 nashik allowed the application (exhibit 28) filed by the defendant under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure 1908 and rejected the plaint. the appellant has impugned the said order and judgment dated 7th april, 2011 in this appeal which order and judgment is deemed to be decree within the meaning ..... judgment dated 7th april, 2011 passed by the learned district judge 1, nashik allowing the application filed by the respondent under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure, 1908 and thereby rejecting the plaint. some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under :- 3. on 18th august 2005 the appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit ..... by the defendant. 6. on 28th october, 2009 the defendant filed an application under order vii rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure, 1908 inter alia praying for rejection of the plaint. it is averred in the said application that the plaint was filed by mr.siddharth sachdev claiming to be a director of the plaintiff company. it is submitted that order 29 rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2014 (HC)

Narasus Coffee Company Vs. R.P.Sarathy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-2014

..... of the view that the revision petitioners are entitled to seek an order under order 7 rule 11 (a) and (d) of the code of civil procedure, to reject the plaint, on the ground that there is no legal cause of action and the relief sought for is not a common law remedy, but contrary ..... a.no.865 of 2009 was filed by the revision petitioners / defendants, under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure (herein after referred to as the code), seeking an order to reject the plaint, on the ground that the first respondent / plaintiff, a retired partner is not entitled to partition and claim any ..... to indian partnership act and hence, the same could be construed only as an abuse of process of law and court.43. in the result, this civil ..... v. asstt. charity commr., reported in (2004) 3 scc137 it was held by the hon'ble apex court that plaint could be rejected under order 7 rule 11 (a) cpc, when the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. the cause of action should be a cause of action, as per law for ..... action taken against the member of the club, the defendant club challenged the order granting interim injunction and order dismissing the application to reject the plaint, by way of civil revision petition before this court, wherein this court held that the revision preferred under article 227 of the constitution of india was maintainable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2014 (HC)

Natarajan Vs. Jacob Manohar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-17-2014

..... will lie. ....". (x) k.s.geetha v. stanleybuck [air2003madras146, wherein in paragraph no.9, it has been held as follows:- ".9. order vii, rule 11 of code of civil procedure deals with rejection of plaint. once the plaint is rejected, then obviously nothing is pending before the court. that order is formal expression of an adjudication, which so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines ..... . ... from a reading of the above, it is clear that the revision is not maintainable since the rejection of the plaint is a decree under the code of civil procedure, and even if the plaint is rejected on some other grounds, the remedy is only an appeal under section 96 of cpc.". (xiii) govindarajan padayachi v. premananda vijayakumar @ prem anand [2013 (6) ctc467, wherein in paragraph no.9 ..... the rights of the parties. in fact, s.2 of the code of civil procedure which defines the term decree specifically states that the decree shall be deemed to include rejection of the plaint. section 96 of the code deals with appeal from original decrees. the claim of the respondents is that the order rejecting plaint being the decree by the trial court, the only remedy, if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (HC)

Mr.R.Riyaz Ahmed Vs. J.G.Glass Industries Pvt.Ltd

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-04-2014

..... of the true owner. in the present suit, the plaintiffs denied the ownership of the defendants. the defendants filed a petition under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint, raising the plea of maintainability of the suit claiming title by advers.possession, however, denying the title of the defendants. after the filing of the written statement on ..... the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, mr.v.ramesh, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the courts below rightly rejected the plaint under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure for the reason that the plaintiffs had not approached the court with clean hands and also taking inconsistent stand in the present suit and in ..... village sirthala and another]., the said prayer is not maintainable. therefore, on this ground also the plaint is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the courts below, taking into consideration the case of both parties, rightly rejected the plaint. 17.there is no dispute with regard to the ratios laid down in the judgments relied upon ..... 27.06.2006, the plaintiffs filed an application in i.a.no.824 of 2006 under order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure to implead six other persons .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2014 (HC)

M/S Johnson and Johnson Ltd., Vs. Shreem Enterpraises,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-09-2014

..... statement on 19.09.2013. thereafter on 05.02.2014, the defendant filed an application in i.a.no.899 of 2013 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint.5. in the affidavit filed in support of the application in i.a.no.899 of 2013, the defendant has stated as follows: according to the defendant, the ..... .08.2014 in c.r.p.(pd)no.1436 of 2013 in m.ravichandran vs. g.suresh babu @ vincent held that an order declining to reject the plaint filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure passed by a court and subordinate to high court, only a revision shall lie and no appeal is maintainable. in view of the judgment of ..... -fledged trial.17. it is settled position that an application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint should be filed based on the averments stated in the plaint and it would not be proper to file a petition to reject the plaint after filing of the written statement. in the case on hand, the defendant filed their written statement ..... the distributorship by extending the distributor agreement beyond the aforesaid period. (v) according to the defendant, as per the provisions of the specific relief act 1963, the plaint deserves to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. any alleged disputes between the parties ought to be resolved by initiating arbitration proceedings. in these circumstances, the defendant prayed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2014 (HC)

1. Johnson and Johnson Ltd., Vs. Hostech Services,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-09-2014

..... statement on 18.04.2013. thereafter on 25.06.2013, the defendants filed an application in i.a.no.302 of 2013 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint.5. in the affidavit filed in support of the application in i.a.no.302 of 2013, the defendants have stated as follows: according to the defendants, the ..... .08.2014 in c.r.p.(pd)no.1436 of 2013 in m.ravichandran vs. g.suresh babu @ vincent held that an order declining to reject the plaint filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure passed by a court and subordinate to high court, only a revision shall lie and no appeal is maintainable. in view of the judgment of ..... -fledged trial.18. it is settled position that an application filed under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint should be filed based on the averments stated in the plaint and it would not be proper to file a petition to reject the plaint after the filing of the written statement. in the case on hand, the defendants filed their written ..... the distributorship by extending the distributor agreement beyond the aforesaid period. (v) according to the defendants, as per the provisions of the specific relief act 1963, the plaint deserves to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d) of the code of civil procedure. any alleged disputes between the parties ought to be resolved by initiating arbitration proceedings. in these circumstances, the defendants prayed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 2014 (HC)

D.R. Premaleela and Others Vs. D.R. Hanumantha Raju and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-12-2014

..... order dated 15.2.2013. in the backdrop of the above, by invoking order vii rule 11 (b) and (c) of the code of civil procedure, the trial court has rejected the plaint. 6. sri.k.suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, the deed in question was a gift deed and the value ..... plaintiffs of o.s.no.7731/2009 on the file of the xxv additional city civil judge, bangalore, dated 12.04.2013 in rejecting their plaint under order vii rule 11(b) and (c) of the code of civil procedure, for non-payment of the court fee. 2. facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal ..... which is nothing but abuse of the procedure of the court. rightly the trial court has rejected the plaint under order vii rule 11(b) and (c) of the code of civil procedure. because of the lapses on the part of the plaintiffs, the plaint in o.s.no.7731/2009 is rejected. without any other option, the trial court ..... regular first appeal is filed under section 96 of cpc, against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013 passed in o.s.no.7731/2009 on the file of the xxv additional city civil judge, bangalore, rejecting the plaint u/order 7 rule 11(b) and (c) cpc.) 1. this appeal is filed by the aggrieved ..... plaintiffs to pay court fee on the market value of the 'c' schedule property, which is the subject matter of the gift deed and thereafter rejecting the plaint?" 9. admittedly, the market value of the property which was gifted by way of registered gift deeds, is not mentioned in the gift deed. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2014 (HC)

1.C.R.Gandhi Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-04-2014

..... have filed an application in i.a.no.151 of 2012 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure to reject the plaint in o.s.no.26 of 2012 on the ground that the plaint averments does not disclose any cause of action and it is barred by law. on 31.01.2012 ..... so, the petitioners herein filed a petition under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure. the trial court, without properly appreciating the facts, allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioners under order 7 rule 11 and rejected the plaint. aggrieved over the same, an appeal has been preferred. thus, they sought ..... , the said application was allowed and the plaint was rejected. in the meantime, the petitioners preferred an appeal under section ..... 126 of the transfer of the property act or not is purely a matter of evidence. the same has to be adjudicated only before the civil court. the registrar is not a competent person to register the unilateral cancellation deed by deciding the question whether it falls within the exception ..... unconditional and irrevocable. if at all the party who has executed the document is aggrieved by the settlement deed he could have very well approached the civil court to set it aside, but certainly not unilaterally cancel it by getting the deed of cancellation registered with the sub registrar. the cancellation deed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2014 (HC)

S.A.Buvaneshwari Vs. 1.P.A.Nagarajan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-09-2014

..... mentioned in schedule 'c'. the first defendant has filed an application in i.a.no.2 of 2007 under order 7 rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint stating that in view of the final decree passed in o.s.no.122 of 1988 on the file of the sub court, srivilliputtur, the ..... present suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected. according to the plaintiff, the decree obtained in o.s.no.122 of 1988 is collusive ..... in nature and that he did not receive any summons in the said suit. the defendants 2 to 5 admitted the decree and pursuant to which, a preliminary decree was passed.4. on a perusal of the plaint ..... the plaintiff has not stated anything as to the service of summons in the final decree application and in the execution application.9. on a reading of the plaint averments, it is clear that the plaintiff had ignored the decree passed in o.s.no.122 of 1988 and filed the suit for partition.10. the ..... s.no.122 of 1988, the trial court need not decide the rights of the parties in respect of the other properties.13. with these observations, this civil revision petition is disposed of. the principal district judge, virudhunagar district at srivilliputtur is directed to dispose of the suit in o.s.no.109 of 2006 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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