Follow:
- Next story PIL in Madras HC to Facilitate Essential Commodities
- Previous story [4/2, 13:32] +91 98846 70187: 1. Fresh suit barred where Suit wholly or part dismissed for non-appearance Ans.: Order 9 Rule 9 – When after service of summons defendant appears but plaintiff doesn’t and the court dismisses the suit for non-apperance of plaintiff either in whole or in part (under O9R8), fresh suit is barred. 2. Courts power to examine party present in court Ans.: Order 10 Rule 2 3. Court can direct party to explain further or by examination when his affidavit omits or insufficiently answer Ans.: Order 11 Rule 11 – where a person interrogated omits or answers insufficiently, court on application of party order to answer or answer further by affidavit or oral examination. Affidavit here is one filed under Order 11 Rule 8 4. Documents to be sought for in this Form & Appendix Ans.: Form 7 in Appendix C as per Order 11 Rule 16 and Form 12 in Appendix C as per Order 12 Rule 8 – Form 7 is for production of documents mentioned in pleadings and affidavit and Form 12 is for general purpose for whatever documents in custody of a party. 5. Parties to produce original documents on settlement of issues Ans.: Order 13 Rule 1 [4/2, 19:00] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Order 47 rule 7 2013(3) SCJ 142 State of Assam vs Ripa Sarma Petition challenging order of dismissal of review petition- judgement in main writ appeal not challenged prior or in this SLP- in the absence of challenge to main judgement, SLP challenging subsequent order in review petition not maintainable Order 8 rule 10; order 9 rule 13 2013(5) SCJ 189 Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co Ltd & another Suit for recovery of money where appearance entered written statement not filed- decreed ex parte- petition for setting aside rejected as not maintainable- court to be more cautious while exercising power when defendant fails to file written statement- court to be satisfied there is no need to prove despite deemed admission by defendant- court should give reasons for giving judgement- court has not examined whether suit is within limitation- court did not examine prima facie case for passing decree- no reason assigned for proceedings under order 8 rule 10- court had not recorded satisfaction that no facts needs to be proved- decree could be subjected to provision of order 9 rule 13 [4/3, 07:43] Cpc G. Surya Narayanan Mhc Advt: Quote provision for the situation: 1. Bare denial of agreement is denial of fact of express agreement 2. Suit on the basis of lost negotiable instruments maintainable 3. Order 8 rule 10 based on this provision 4. Consequence to comply with discovery 5. Documents admitted if notice not denied
Recent Posts
- The title. Of the article “Beyond Blood and Marriage” Beyond Blood and Marriage: The Madras High Court and the Constitutional Recognition of Chosen Families By Srimathi Venkatachari In a quiet courtroom of the Madras High Court, a young woman’s freedom
- NOTIFICATION NO. 156 / 2025 I. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR will sit in a Division Bench at 2.15 P.M. on 18.06.2025 and pronounce Judgment in the cases as listed through Video conferencing / Hybrid / Physical Mode. II. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE
- [18/06, 08:46] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Tksq1P994r0?si=mYqCIBA7Ji7EZQO7 [18/06, 09:50] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx-jcBzeXVZem2z4LUkBBrzVJM9YE75lcs?si=9PS-SwfZnPNL_B5f
- On this sole ground of non-application of mind, the order impugned in this writ appeal is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. Liberty is given to the respondent to issue fresh notice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant gives an undertaking that they would not plead the limitation as a defence. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that the respondent will issue such a revised notice within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that all the contentions of both the parties are left open. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 16.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: State Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District – 628 902. G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J. ias W.A.(MD)No.1601 of 2021 16.04.2025
- In the light of the above discussion, the view taken by the Judgment in Karupuchetty @ Vaiyapuri v. Papathi and others in AS.No. 148 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 and Prema v. Nallasellam in A.S.No.588 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 are over- ruled. The Registry shall continue to adhere to the Appellate Side Rules and issue notice on the appeals being presented and registered. It shall not post the appeals for admission as directed in the aforesaid judgments. If the court so directs, it shall list the appeal for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11. 140. List the appeals before the learned Single Judge tomorrow i.e., on 23.05.2025 for appropriate orders. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) 22.05.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order KST/NL/KRK G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KST/NL/KRK A.S.Nos.617,618,619 and 621 of 2025 22.05.2025
More
Recent Posts
- The title. Of the article “Beyond Blood and Marriage” Beyond Blood and Marriage: The Madras High Court and the Constitutional Recognition of Chosen Families By Srimathi Venkatachari In a quiet courtroom of the Madras High Court, a young woman’s freedom
- NOTIFICATION NO. 156 / 2025 I. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR will sit in a Division Bench at 2.15 P.M. on 18.06.2025 and pronounce Judgment in the cases as listed through Video conferencing / Hybrid / Physical Mode. II. HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE
- [18/06, 08:46] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/Tksq1P994r0?si=mYqCIBA7Ji7EZQO7 [18/06, 09:50] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx-jcBzeXVZem2z4LUkBBrzVJM9YE75lcs?si=9PS-SwfZnPNL_B5f
- On this sole ground of non-application of mind, the order impugned in this writ appeal is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. Liberty is given to the respondent to issue fresh notice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant gives an undertaking that they would not plead the limitation as a defence. The learned Additional Government Pleader states that the respondent will issue such a revised notice within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that all the contentions of both the parties are left open. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 16.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: State Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District – 628 902. G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J. ias W.A.(MD)No.1601 of 2021 16.04.2025
- In the light of the above discussion, the view taken by the Judgment in Karupuchetty @ Vaiyapuri v. Papathi and others in AS.No. 148 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 and Prema v. Nallasellam in A.S.No.588 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 are over- ruled. The Registry shall continue to adhere to the Appellate Side Rules and issue notice on the appeals being presented and registered. It shall not post the appeals for admission as directed in the aforesaid judgments. If the court so directs, it shall list the appeal for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11. 140. List the appeals before the learned Single Judge tomorrow i.e., on 23.05.2025 for appropriate orders. (G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) & (V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) 22.05.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order KST/NL/KRK G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. KST/NL/KRK A.S.Nos.617,618,619 and 621 of 2025 22.05.2025
