Court News from Madras High Court

Uncategorized

[4/3, 11:15] Sekarreporter 1: https://dinamalarandroidapp.page.link/R8YdBW5VocZYGRoH7 Dinamalar [4/3, 11:15] Sekarreporter 1: 🙏🏼

by Sekar Reporter · April 3, 2020

[4/3, 11:15] Sekarreporter 1: https://dinamalarandroidapp.page.link/R8YdBW5VocZYGRoH7

Dinamalar
[4/3, 11:15] Sekarreporter 1: 🙏🏼

Share this post:

X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Email

You may also like...

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

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Exit mobile version