SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 29

BADAR DURREZ AHMED
NAHAR SPINNING MILLS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY HOSIERY CO. LTD. – Respondent


BADARDURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS application has been moved by the defendant no. 4 (Gulf Air), under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on two grounds: (1) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action as against the defendant No. 4, (2) The suit as against defendant No. 4 is not maintainable as being time barred. The Background:

( 2 ) THE plaint was originally filed at Ludhiana on 1. 10. 1993. It was numbered as S. No. 458/1993. The defendant No. 4 (Gulf Air) had filed an application, inter alia, objecting to the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there being no cause of action disclosed against it. That application was dismissed by the Court at Ludhiana. The defendant No. 4 preferred a Civil Revision before the Punjab and haryana High Court which decided the same in favour of the defendant No. 4 on 7. 9. 1999. In other words, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Court at Ludhiana did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the constitution of India before the Supreme Court. The same was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court. As a consequence

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top