Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Citation for Section 152, order 6 rule 17; order 2 rule 2 posted yesterday 2009(4) SCJ 417 [12/18, 17:45] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER LXI RULE 4 – 2009(4) SCJ 623 A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. BALOJI BADHAVATH

[12/18, 16:51] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Citation for Section 152, order 6 rule 17; order 2 rule 2 posted yesterday
2009(4) SCJ 417
[12/18, 17:45] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: ORDER LXI RULE 4 –
2009(4) SCJ 623
A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. BALOJI BADHAVATH

Appellate Court finding merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents set aside entire judgement – even if other respondents did not appeal the order.

SECTION 9 –
2009(5) SCJ 757
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. BAL MUKUND BAIRWA

Civil Court will have jurisdiction when a statute creating rights and obligations does not constitute a forum for its enforcement – civil Court can determine its jurisdiction considering averments made in plaint – unless there is express or necessary implication, there is bar to entertain suit – Civil Court always has jurisdiction.

SECTION 151 –
2009(5) SCJ 622
SHANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS VS. PRAKASH NARAIN MATHUR

Rent Controller has power to exercise discretion to strike out defence under section 15(7) of Delhi Rent Control Act or to reject the application under 151 for condonation of delay in compliance with deposit of rent on an order by the court.

ORDER VI RULE 17 –
2009(5) SCJ 537
SUSHEEL KUMAR JAIN VS. MANOJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Court should be more liberal in allowing amendment to written statement than that of plaint, as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter – Addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can be allowed.
[12/19, 19:24] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 7 rule 11(d) –
2009(5) SCJ 349
Sh.Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Smt.Daya Sapra

Rejection of plaint as barred by statute- Such an embargo on maintainability of the suit must be apparent from the averments made in the plaint

Order 8 rule 5
2009(5) SCJ 485
Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad

Averments in Plaint not denied by defendant- Held, same is deemed to have been admitted under order 8 rule 5

Order 21 rule 46 B; order 39 rule 2A
2009(5) SCJ 31
Food corporation of India vs Sukh Deo Prasad

Execution is the remedy if Garnishee or defendant directed to pay sum of money fails to pay and no action for contempt or disobedience- Contempt is not intended for enforcement of money decree or direction for payment of money

Order 40 rule 1
2009(5) SCJ 550
Paramanand Patel (d) by Lrs & another vs Sudha A.Chowgule and others

A court shall presume existence of rights in the property of deceased in favour of the heir unless strong prima facie case made out that she is deprived- It is not for the court to consider whether the stand is fair to other heir- Even if Will is held as executed in sound disposing mind- conduct of party cannot be lost sight of- fit case to appoint receiver

Leave a Reply

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

Call Now ButtonCALL ME