Judgments - CPC
Smt. Premwati Devi Vs. State Of U.P. & Another
Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this court finds that the application to withdraw the suit in appeal has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, which was rightly held to be not maintainable as there was no compromise between the parties. Even otherwise, the suit has been dismissed on merits and also applications for amendment have been rejected. Full Judgment
JYOTI LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BHARAT J. PATEL & OTHERS
The maintainability of a suit is question of law. Though, by virtue of declaration under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all suits of civil nature are maintainable unless barred either by an express provision or by implication of law. We are of the opinion that the directions in paras 7.2 and 7.3 are inconsistent with the directions in para 7.4. Apart from Full Judgment
M/S SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
The short question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether after the disposal of the appeal, the Court Receiver stands discharged or whether he continues in his office till an order of discharge is passed by the Court? In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession Full Judgment
SHYAM LAL Vs. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after expiry of the lease period or continued to be a tenant having protection for eviction under the tenancy laws. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion the trial court, the appellate court Full Judgment
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. Vs. OCEAN MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. & ANR
It has not been disputed by the appellant that the Bombay High Court while passing the order of attachment was not aware about the fact that the vessel was seized by the Madras High Court much prior to the filing of the suit by the appellant in Bombay High Court. The Division Bench in the impugned order has recorded the finding that Madras High Full Judgment