AI Overview...
- Ramsevak Kashinath - Main points and insights:
- The case AIR 1986 Orissa 1 (Wardman Finance Corporation v. Ghulam Ahmad Lone) is a significant reference supporting the respondent's position, emphasizing that non-joinder of necessary parties is a substantive defect that can strike at the root of a suit and is not merely a formal defect VILAS SHRIRAM MAHALLE VS RAJDHANIPRASAD RAHINPRASAD TIWARI - Bombay, Raghuraj VS Ramprakash - Madhya Pradesh.
- In several judgments, including AIR 1986 Orissa 1 and AIR 1982 N.O.C. 142, it has been held that non-registration of a firm at the time of suit initiation is not a formal defect, and provisions under Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC are not automatically attracted Vizag Medical Stores, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam VS Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Ltd. , Visakhapatnam - Andhra Pradesh, Karni Kumar Khatri VS Assam Motor Finance Company - Gauhati.
- The case also discusses the importance of necessary parties, such as partners or legal heirs, in ensuring the maintainability of a suit, and highlights that their absence can jeopardize the suit’s validity KHATUNA VS RAMSEWAK KASHINATH - Orissa.
- Judicial observations reinforce that non-joinder or non-registration issues are substantive and can impact the entire proceeding, with references to various High Court rulings across Orissa, Madras, and Delhi RAMSEWAK KASHINATH VS SARAFUDDIN - Orissa, Sainaba VS Sulabha - Kerala.
-
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar is noted as having impliedly overruled some earlier views, indicating evolving legal standards on procedural defects VILAS SHRIRAM MAHALLE VS RAJDHANIPRASAD RAHINPRASAD TIWARI - Bombay.
-
Analysis and Conclusion:
- The collected judgments underscore that procedural defects such as non-joinder of necessary parties or non-registration of firms are substantive issues, affecting the core validity of a suit.
- Courts tend to interpret non-joinder or registration deficiencies as serious defects that can invalidate proceedings if not rectified, emphasizing the importance of proper party inclusion.
- The legal stance favors ensuring all necessary parties are impleaded at the outset to prevent the risk of dismissals or nullification of proceedings.
- These insights collectively highlight the judiciary’s approach to procedural completeness and the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in civil suits involving partnerships and property matters.
Search Results for "Ramsevak Kashinath"
2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1525 • India - Bombay
S.J.VAZIFDAR
Ramsevak Kashinath, A. l. R. 1986 Orissa 1, Wardrnan Finance Corporation vs. Ghulam Ahmad Lone, a. l. R. 1982 N. O. C. 142 (J. and K.) and T. Savriraj Pillai vs. R. S. S. Vastrad and Company, A. l. R. 1990 Madras 198. ... Ramsewak kashinath, AIR 1986 Orissa, 1, which is directly on the point and supports the case of the respondents. ... ( 6 ) MR. ... Ramsewak Kashinath (supra0 are impliedly overruled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haldiram bhujiawala vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Ku....
• India - High Court of Karnataka
ASHOK S. KINAGI
and personal safety of others, while driving so, he dashed his vehicle to incoming vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29/AL-0330 being ridden by one Sachin S/o: Ramasevak
1985 0 Supreme(Ori) 4 • India - Orissa
K.P.MOHAPATRA
Ramsewak Kasinath' in partnership are necessary parties to the suit and in their absence the same was likely to fail. ... C. it was stated that the legal heirs and representatives of late Rama Chandra Agarwalla and late Rama Sewak Pandey Kasinath which took the suit land on rent and started petrol business were not made parties to the suit According to Mr.
1990 0 Supreme(Ori) 125 • India - Orissa
G.B.PATTANAIK
Ramsewak Kashinath, a partnership firm ).
1988 0 Supreme(Gau) 137 • India - Gauhati
S.HAQUE
Ramsewak Kashinath.). ... 5.
2001 0 Supreme(AP) 1223 • India - Andhra Pradesh
P.S.NARAYANA
Ramsewak Kashinath, a Partnership Firm and Anr. (supra) it was held that the non-registration of a firm on the date of the institution of the suit is not a formal defect and hence, the provisions under Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC, are not attracted. In A. V. S. Perumal v. ... Ramsewak Kashinath, Partnership Firm and Anr. , AIR 1986 Ori. 1, T. Savarira Pillai v. R. S. S. Vastrad and Company, AIR 1990 Mad. 198; 1982 NOC 142 (Jandk) = 1981 (Kashmir LJ) 181 and also Annapoorna Fertilisers and General Stores v.
2006 0 Supreme(Ori) 569 • India - Orissa
P.K.TRIPATHY
Ramsewak Kashinath v. Sarafuddin and others, 1990 (II) OLR 483, Shri Jag Mohan Chawla and another v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang and others, 1996 (II) OLR (SC) 48, Mangulu Pirai v. Prafulla Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1989 Orissa 50.
2016 0 Supreme(MP) 643 • India - Madhya Pradesh
S.A.DHARMADHIKARI
Ramsewak Kashinath and another [AIR 1986 Orissa 1], to emphasise that non-joinder of necessary party in a suit is not a formal defect, the defect strikes at the root of the suit in any stage and the provisions of Order 23, rule 1(3) is not attracted.
1997 0 Supreme(Bom) 348 • India - Bombay
A.P.SHAH, B.B.VAGYANI
Ramsewak Kashinath)6, A.I.R. 1986 Orissa 1, (Wardman Finance Corporation v. Ghulam Ahmad Lone)7, A.I.R. 1982 N.O.C. 142 (J. K.) and (T. Savariraj Pillai v. R.S.S. Vastrad and Company)8, A.I.R. 1990 Madras 198. ... 7.Mr.
2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 163 • India - Kerala
M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
Ramsewak Kashinath and another (AIR 1986 Orissa 1), M/s. Shankar Housing Corporation v. Mohan Devi & Ors. (AIR 1978 Delhi 255) and Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E.
Filter by Legal Phrase
