Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: 2011(8) SCJ 518

[2/21, 17:18] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: 2011(8) SCJ 518

Section 96

State Bank of India & another Vs Emmsons International Ltd., & another

First appellate court (High Court) allowed the appeal without adverting to the issue or upsetting the finds of trial Court – High court failed to follow the fundamental rule governing exercise of jurisdiction

2011(8) SCJ 505

Section 100

M/s.Shiv Cotex VS. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd., & Others

Suit to declare that the take over of assets and sale proceedings of the Corporation is illegal dismissed – After dismissal of suit, the corporation sold the property to the appellant – Application to implead filed in appeal allowed – Second appeal allowed remitting the matter to trial court for fresh consideration – High Court interfered with the concurrent findings on a misplaced sympathy and non – existent justification by observing the stakes in the suit are very high – If no evidence is produced by the plaintiff to prove their case, it deserve no sympathy in second appeal
[2/23, 12:35] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: 2011(8) SCJ 829
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India & another
Order 6 Rule 17
Suit laid to declare certain notifications as null and void and for further direction – Pending suit amendment application filed to declare a particular Section as null and void – Proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy between parties – Held, in the present case, amendment introduces new case and plaintiff allowed to raise all contentions in trial, without allowing amendment
2012 (1) SCJ 907
Section 9
Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham & others
Suit against the decision of scrutiny committee to caste certificate does not give raise to cause of action under any statute – Held, order of scrutiny committee can be challenged only in Article 226 of Constitution and not by suit or other proceedings
2012 (1) SCJ 853
Section 35
Sanjeev Kumar Jain VS. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & others
Section 35 does not impose ceiling on costs and gives discretion to the court to grant costs – Court cannot ignore conditions or limitations prescribed under the section and award costs – Merely by seeking consent of parties to award litigation expenses as costs in an appeal relating to interim order in a civil suit for Rs.45,28,000/- is not within the limitation prescribed under the Section – Costs reduced to Rs.,3,000/-
2012 (1) SCJ 616
Dr.T.Varghese George Vs. Kora K.George & others
Section 92, explanation IV to Section 11
Three persons taking interest in trust filed suit for framing scheme for the trust – Trust though constituted by persons belonging to religious minority, the litigants did not challenge the finding of three Courts – Civil Court cannot try same issue again – issue of character of trust cannot be permitted to be reopened

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME