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, 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
[12/21, 10:40] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 41 rule 19
2009(5) SCJ 643
Satpal Singh vs Chunni Lal (d) through Lrs
First appeal dismissed for default for non- appearance of counsel- application for restoration dismissed and second appeal dismissed by single judge holding no sufficient cause to condone delay or for setting aside ex parte order- appellant justified as his brother died and he met with accident- first appeal directed to be disposed on merits
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Hong kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation
Section 22 to 24; 151; 16 to 20
2009(6) SCJ 109
Plaintiff dominus litus may institute suit in any civil court within whose jurisdiction cause of action arises when he is entitled to maintain an action in two different court chosing one of them- high court can transfer case from one subordinate court to any other court within high court jurisdiction- only Supreme Court can transfer to courts subordinate to different high court
Section 100
2009(6) SCJ 380
Katla Muthyal Naidu vs Kothapalle Venkatappa Naidu & others
High court dismissed second appeal that there is no pleading of adverse possession in Plaint and only allegation is defendant trying to dispossess plaintiff- held, applicant cannot be treated as pendente lite purchaser- matter remitted for fresh consideration
Section 144
2009(6) SCJ 430
Woods Beach Hotel Ltd vs Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank of Goa Ltd & others
When decree holder was auction purchaser in a court auction sale held in execution of a decree which is subsequently set aside- restitution of property can be ordered in favour of judgement debtor- purchase in court auction by outsiders bonafidely is protected if decree is set aside, when purchaser is not party to suit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Call Now ButtonCALL ME