Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is not disputed that Masjid is a place used for religious purpose for praying Namaz etc., therefore, it comes within the definition of ‘Waqf’.”
“The right to sue under Article 113 of the Limitation Act accrues when there is an accrual of rights asserted in the suit and an unequivocal threat by the defendant to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit.”
If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.
Supreme Court reiterated that the Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions.
Filing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1098 was just an act to wriggle out of and get over Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
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.”
Calcutta High Court held that “in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed.”
Calcutta High Court stated that the defendant did not produce any documents to prove he has complied with his obligation under MOU, leading to its cancellation.
The Calcutta High Court clarified that rejection of the plaint is not warranted based on allegations of collusion or lack of cause of action, which are factual issues to be determined during the trial.
“The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.”
In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque’s character into a Temple.
Rajasthan High Court: Anoop Kumar Dhand J. allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 17-08-2021 passed by the Court of
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
Kerala High Court: The Bench of A. Hariprasad, J. hearing an appeal against remand order, answered substantial questions of law in relation
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.S. Chandurkar, J. allowed a civil revision application filed by the tenant —
Hyderabad High Court: In the instant appeal, question arose that whether the Application I.A.No. 1751 of 2006 filed for recovery of shares,
Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner aggrieved by an order of rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the Senior