2012 (3) AWC 2930
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of UP (CMWP 27152 of 2008) (Sunil Hali J)
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Counsel in Review Petition must be the same as the one in the original petition
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., I (1997) CLT 338 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 1005
In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.
In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.
Narmada Bachao Andolan V (2011) SLT 36
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Order 7, Rule 11 - to be decided only on the basis of plaint
The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC614, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson / Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)