INDU KHORANA V/S GRAM SABHA AND OTHERS
Whether DLR Act will ceases to apply after passing notification under section 507 of DMC Act?
Whether tax could be levied by MCD after urbanization of agricultural land?
HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD V/s STATE OF UP and OTHERS (Automatic vacation of stay)
Whether court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 142 of Constitution of India, can pass an order of automatic vacation of interim/stay orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of civil or criminal cases on the expiry of certain period?
Whether this court under article 142 can direct the High courts to decide pending case in which interim order of stay of proceedings has been granted, on day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?
SUKHBIRI DEVI AND OTHERS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Whether the issue of limitation can be determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’)?
Whether a larger period of limitation of 12 years would be available to the plaintiffs to bring in a suit by virtue of application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1968 (for short ‘The Act’), as contended by the appellant and in the facts and circumstances obtained in this case?
Whether Article 17 or Article 65 of the Act got any application, as contended by the appellants, in view of the plaint averments, in case Article 136 of the Act is found inapplicable?
CHHOTANBEN & ANR. VS. KIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR & ORS.
Whether the High court order is viable wherein allowing the application under order 7 rule 11 (d) thereby rejecting the plaint on ground of limitation?
Whether the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is a triable issue or suit can be dismissed at threshold?
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank Ltd (Rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11in part)
Whether the plaint can be rejected only against one defendant or it must be rejected as whole?
KUM GEETHA D/O LATE KRISHNA AND OTHERS v/s NANJUNDASWAMY AND OTHERS
What is the correct application of the principle underlying the “rejection of plaint” under order 7 rule 11 of CPC?
Whether the plaint can be rejected in part?
PARTIAL REJECTION OF PLAINT: ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC
It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense….”
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT WHILE REJECTING UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF CPC.
High court held that the trial court was not justified having allowed application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 while the relief for the rejection of plaint has been granted under order 7 rule 11 of CPC . Supreme court ratified the judgment of the High court and held that order of the trial court was not in consonance with law.
DAHIBEN VS. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (order 7 rule 11- rejection of plaint)
Remedy under order 7 rule 11 is special and independent remedy and application under the said order should be adjudged at the threshold. The crucial objection under order 7 rule 11 is clause (a) that is no cause of action and clause (d) suit is barred by the law.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act.