Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The essence of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to terminate a civil action or to put an end to a litigation is an essential duty of a Civil Court so that further judicial time is not invested wastefully.”
“The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” must be very narrowly construed. The rejection of plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences. This power must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and when the Court is sure that plaintiff does not have any arguable case at all.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on limitation period of suit on possession of immovable property.
Delhi High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted, emphasizing the need to focus solely on the allegations in the plaint at the preliminary stage because the issues regarding limitation and adverse possession required further evidence and examination, which could not be resolved without a full trial.
Allahabad High Court said that the petitioner had 15 days’ period to make the payment from the date of receipt of notice, on 08-01-2020, and the said period expired on 23-01-2020. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 23-01-2020, as per clause (c) of the proviso of Section 138.
Calcutta High Court stated that “Order VII, Rule 11 is applicable to the plaint which does not disclose cause of action and not the cases where the plea is non-existence of cause of action.”
The Calcutta High Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure speedy trial.
“The issuance of the letter dated 10-05-2016 from Delhi can, at best, be said to constitute a ‘slender part of the cause of action’ and cannot be determinative of the question as to whether this Court ought to entertain the petition.”
“As per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of arbitration.”
Although the instant matter was remanded back to NCDRC to decide on facts, the Supreme Court very well elaborated the cause of action, Doctrine of Merger, principle of Res Judicata and Precedents.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
In 2012, Pondicherry District Collector had initiated inquiry against the Aurobindo Ashram Trust following allegations of sexual harassment, suicide of inmates and serious malpractices in the functioning of the school run by the Ashram, made by an inmate, Vishnu Lalit Singh, and a then MLA Ashok Anand.
Karnataka High Court: In the instant petition for quashment, the issue arose that whether a legal heir should be permitted to come
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., emphasized the law on territorial jurisdiction while addressing the present matter. Present petition was filed impugning
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., while addressing the present matter held that prima facie view on territorial jurisdiction has to be
by Raghav Sengupta†
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition. The facts of the case are
The concept of ‘Back to Nature’ ought not to be used for developing revenue at the cost of Environment and Ecology.
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while observing a matrimonial application, observed that, The plaint must