Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Government of Andhra Pradesh Thr. Principal Secretary VS Pratap Karan...
Checking relevance for Prem Lata Nahata VS Chandi Prasad Sikaria...
2007 2 Supreme 1 : The law permits the consolidation of suits where there are two or more matters or causes pending in court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in them, or that the rights to relief claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. Consolidation is a procedural mechanism to save costs, time, and effort, and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one. In cases involving similar causes of action, even if the transactions are distinct, consolidation is permissible when the evidence to be led is common and the ultimate questions for decision are related. The court has the power to consolidate suits even if there is a misjoinder of parties or causes of action, as such procedural defects do not bar the suit from being entertained. The mere fact that causes of action arise from different transactions does not preclude consolidation if there is a commonality of issues, evidence, or transactional context, especially when joint trial is more convenient and efficient.Checking relevance for VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA VS MALAMPATI SURYAMBA...
2021 0 Supreme(SC) 26 : Where different and distinct claims of more than one party are sought to be vindicated in one single proceeding, as in the case before the court, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees. The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseparable one. The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseparable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-a-vis the remaining parties would suffer the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.Checking relevance for N. Khosla VS Rajlakshmi (dead)...
2006 2 Supreme 498 : Where different and distinct claims of more than one party are sought to be vindicated in one single proceeding, even if the claims are similar or identical in nature, the decree passed by the court should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The mere fact that claims or rights asserted by multiple parties are similar or identical in nature, or that they are joined together for convenience, does not render the judgment or decree a joint and inseparable one. The determination of whether a decree is joint and inseverable or separable depends on whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-à-vis the remaining parties would suffer from contradictory or inconsistent decrees. A decree is only considered contradictory or inconsistent with another if enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.Checking relevance for PREM LALA NAHATA VS CHANDI PRASAD SIKARIA...
2007 0 Supreme(SC) 119 : The court has the power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits, or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are combined or united and treated as one cause or matter, primarily to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient. In this case, the court emphasized that the three suits—two filed by the respondent against the appellants and the counterclaim suit filed by the appellants—should be jointly tried because the evidence would be common and the nature of the transactions was interrelated, making a joint trial just and proper.Checking relevance for Suresh Chandra (Deceased) through LRs. VS Parasram...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1090 : Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceeding, as in the present case, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as a mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees. The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one.
