Scribd
Upload
67 views

Keshav Das Tulshan V Jagadish Prasad Tulshan: Bihari v. State of Bihar

AMESON, SHEILA ROHAN. Texas Woman's University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1983. 8401204. ...a significant difference between the referrals made by board certified hitfamily... ...and non-board certified hitfamily hitlaw attorneys. This study was conducted with... ...hitfamily hitlaw attorneys and non-board certif

Uploaded by

RUBAN KALLAMPALLY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views

Keshav Das Tulshan V Jagadish Prasad Tulshan: Bihari v. State of Bihar

AMESON, SHEILA ROHAN. Texas Woman's University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1983. 8401204. ...a significant difference between the referrals made by board certified hitfamily... ...and non-board certified hitfamily hitlaw attorneys. This study was conducted with... ...hitfamily hitlaw attorneys and non-board certif

Uploaded by

RUBAN KALLAMPALLY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Keshav Das Tulshan v Jagadish Prasad Tulshan

 Suit instituted against insurance company and Keshar Das Tulshan


 Mother was appointed as ext friend
 After attaing majority submitted application for discharge of next friend
 Decree in favour of minor
 EP- FILED objection
 Whether decree passed in absence of minor being represented by guardian is valid or not?
 Rejected

Bihari Choudhary v. state of Bihar

Declaration of title & possession – send notice – filed suit before limitation

Office will get an opportunity to scrutinize the claim, to take immediate action and avoid
unnecessary litigation & for advancement of justice.

Trial court sc- dismissed, as the suit is premature

Exception-

a. Urgent relief with leave of court s. 80(2)


b. Waiver by government

Ali Akbar v. UAR

Suit for specific performance


 Suit filed without informing the government
 Defence was rejected
 Hc- applied only to ruler not on state
 SC- s.86 applies to present suit
 Suit against foreign ruler/ ambassadors
 Consent of central government – s. 86
Gujrat bottling co. v. coca cola
The SC held that since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction
of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible
for bringing about the state of affairs complained off and that he was not unfair and inequitable
in his dealing with the parties against whom he was seeking his conduct should be fair and
honest these consideration will arise not nly in respect of the person who seeks an injunction
order under 0.39 but also in respect of the party approaching the court for vacating the ad interim
injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceeding in a caae a lessee under a
permanent lease has already a permanent structure on the lease hood land long back without any
objection in this regard of the part of the lessor. The lessor later, sort the grant of interim
injunction commanding the lessee to pulled on construction as there was no express agreement to
raise such structure, held that the interim injunction as sort for could not be granted specially
when the lessor has not made what prejudice would be cost to him, if the injunction was not
granted and the grant of injunction would cause irreparable loss to the lessee.

Jamadhar v Amirbi
question that would arise is whether the revision under S. 115 C. R. C. is maintainable in such
cases when O. 21, Rr. 99 and 100, C. P. C. provide a remedy for THE seeking back the
possession of the properties from which the petitioners were dispossessed

 on account of the execution of the warrant issued by the executing court under O. 21, R. 35 (1),
have been thrown out of their possession. It has been shown above that the warrant issued under
O. 21, R. 35 (1), C. P. C. is absolutely without jurisdiction, illegal and is vitiated by material
irregularities. If the dispossession has taken place on account of these things, then the revision
petitioners are entitled u/s. 115, C. P. C. to be put back in possession of the properties.

Gurbachan singh v Bhag singh

A belated counter claim must be discouraged.

Respondents/defendants filed the written statement contending that the petitioner and the 8th
respondent had trespassed into their land of an extent of 3 kanals and they are in unlawful
possession. Thereby, they raised counter claim, in the written statement, for possession. The
Trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the petitioners, granted decree for possession of two
kanals, two marlas and one biswas comprising survey numbers mentioned therein. On appeal, it
was confirmed and the High Court confirmed it in R.S.A. No.1190/94 on May 18, 1995. Thus
this Special Leave Petition.
The limitation was that the counter claim or set off must be pleaded by way of defence in the
written statement before the defendant filed his written statement or before the time limit for
delivering the written statement has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a
claim for damages or not. Further limitation was that the counter-claim should not exceed the
pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In other words, by laying the counter claim
pecuniary jurisdiction of the court cannot be divested and the power to try the suit already
entertained cannot be taken away by accepting the counter claim beyond its pecuniary
jurisdiction.. Thus considered, we hold that in a suit for injunction, the counter-claim for
possession also could be entertained, by operation of Order 8 Rule 6 (A)(1) of CPC.

It is sought to be contended that the counter-claim was not filed within the time given for laying
the same. It would appear from the list of the dates given by the petitioner himself that the
counter-claim was filed within two months from the date of the suit itself.

Bhabia Devi v. Parmonand Prasad


The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance on the foot of an agreement alleged to
have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served notice but since she did not
contest the suit, ex-parte decree was granted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application
under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Therein, her
specific case was that she was not residing at Garhia Village and, therefore, the notice could not
be deemed to have been served on her. The endorsement is not correct. The question was gone
into by the courts below after recording the evidence of one Laxuman Yadav, Mahendra Yadav
and process server. It is their case that on January 15, 1985 when the summons were handed over
to Mst. Bhabia Devi and when she was acquainted with the facts, she refused to sign or put
thumb impression on the notice. When the process server had gone to serve it on her personally
on April 2, 1984 to the village and also on April 9, 1984 when the registered card
acknowledgement was sent, she refused to acknowledge it.

Thereby, it is clear that petitioner had refused to accept the notice. Consequently, she was rightly
set ex- parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contest the case on merits. We
cannot go into the merits since the appeal was not subject matter in any of the appeals filed either
under Section 96 or Section 100, C.P.C.

The special leave petition is dismissed.


SNP Shipping service pvt ltd v. world tanker carrier corporation
he plaintiffs have taken out Notice of Motion No. 1663 of 1999 for an order of injunction
restraining the defendants from making any further publication or claims in the media with
regard to the unseaworthiness of the vessel m.v. YA MAWLAYA or to the effect that plaintiffs
being an alter ego of Merali family. On the other hand, defendants have taken out Notice of
Motion No. 1638 of 1999 for striking out the plaint as being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous
and vexatious and also being an abuse of the process of Court under Order 6, Rule 16 read with
section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The
defendants have also taken out Notice of Motion No. 1272 of 1999 for dismissal of the suit under
Order 7, Rule 11-A of the C.P.C; as being without jurisdiction. It is prayed that the issue of
jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue.

applying the aforesaid principles to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
considered opinion that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and has to be struck out
under Order 7, Rule 11(a).

 plaintiffs have mixed up the prayer for declaration with the prayer for damages in order to avoid
the findings of this High Court and the Supreme Court in WTCC case to the effect that this Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Since the plaintiffs are claiming that the damage of the
libel has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiffs would be entitled
to file the suit with regard to damages. But this relief has been deliberately combined with the
declaration which is already claimed in Admiralty Suit No. 58 of 1998.

That the suit be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 1 l(a) of the C.P.C., 1908 and other applicable
provisions, as being without jurisdiction".

State of Punjab v GS Gill


The notice sent to the first respondent was received back by the Registry with the postal
endorsement "No such person" indicating avoidance thereof on his part. Consequently, he was
set ex parte. The second respondent was directed to file counter-affidavit.

The first respondent, feeling aggrieved, filed writ petition in the High Court seeking relief in the
form of a mandamus or direction to the Government to dereserve the carried forward post and to
consider his case for promotion as a general candidate. He contended that since it was the
solitary post, reservation in favour of a Scheduled Caste would amount to 100% reservation
violating Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution.

On appeal, it was affirmed by the Division Bench. When the matter was carried to this Court, it
set aside the order and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration.
The High Court, therefore, is clearly in error in holding that reservation in promotion to a single
post and application of carry forward rule and of roster is unconstitutional.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench and of the learned
Single Judge stand set aside.

You might also like