AI Overview...
- Suit Abatement and Rejection of Main Deferent Suit
- When a suit is abated, it signifies the termination of that suit due to specific legal reasons, such as the death of a party or failure to prosecute, leading to the suit being dismissed or set aside. The abatement of a suit often results in the rejection or dismissal of related or subsequent proceedings, including main or deferent suits.
- Several sources confirm that once a suit or appeal abates, the associated or main suits are also considered to stand dismissed or rejected, and further proceedings on those suits are barred. For example, TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED, BOMBAY VS SADHU SINGH SON OF BALJEET - Allahabad notes that if multiple suits are decided by a common judgment and some appeals abate, the remaining appeals do not become incompetent solely because of the abatement.
- Courts have held that orders directing the rejection of plaints or suits are final dispositions, effectively dismissing the case (L. Ct. L. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar VS M. R. Krishnamurthy Chetty - Madras). Similarly, in criminal and civil contexts, when an application or appeal is dismissed due to abatement, the main suit or criminal proceedings are considered to have been effectively rejected or terminated (PREM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan, State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - Gujarat).
- In criminal cases, abatement of appeals can lead to the dismissal of the main case if the appeal is the only remaining remedy (State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - Gujarat).
-
The rejection of interlocutory applications, such as those for interim relief or deposit of dues, often results in the main suit being dismissed or considered closed (Wework India Management Private Limited VS KGA Investments - Bombay).
-
Main Points and Insights
- Abatement leads to the automatic or consequential rejection of related suits or appeals.
- Orders of rejection or abatement are final and prevent further proceedings on the suit.
- The legal principle emphasizes that once a suit abates, the main or related proceedings are deemed effectively dismissed or rejected, barring revival unless specifically permitted by law.
-
The procedural rules, such as Order 33, Rule 5(d) of Civil Procedure Code, support the rejection of suits lacking a cause of action, especially when abated (L. Ct. L. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar VS M. R. Krishnamurthy Chetty - Madras).
-
Analysis and Conclusion
- The provided sources collectively reinforce that suits or appeals that abate are to be rejected or dismissed as they are considered final disposals. Courts have consistently upheld that abatement results in the rejection of the main or deferent suits, aligning with procedural and substantive legal principles.
- Therefore, in cases where a suit or appeal abates, the appropriate course is to reject the suit or appeal, as continued proceedings would be unwarranted and contrary to legal doctrine (PREM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan, L. Ct. L. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar VS M. R. Krishnamurthy Chetty - Madras, State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - Gujarat).
- This approach maintains judicial efficiency and respects the finality of abatement, preventing unnecessary litigation on already terminated proceedings.
References: - PREM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan - TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED, BOMBAY VS SADHU SINGH SON OF BALJEET - Allahabad - Wework India Management Private Limited VS KGA Investments - Bombay - L. Ct. L. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar VS M. R. Krishnamurthy Chetty - Madras - ITI Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act VS Alphion Corporation In The State Of Delaware - Karnataka - Suman Chadha VS Central Bank of India - Delhi - Court of its own Motion VS B. D. kaushik & 6 others - Crimes - State of Gujarat VS Bilal Ismail Abdul Majid Sujela @ Bilal Haji - Gujarat - COURT IN ITS OWN MOTION VS B. D. KAUSHIK RAJINDER KUMAR, RAJIV KHOSLA, JUGAL WADHWA, R. N. VATS, JITAN SINGH, P. S. RATHEE - Delhi - JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Calcutta
Search Results for "Suit is Abated against Main Deferent Suit should be Rejected"
2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 574 • India - Rajasthan
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, PRAKASH GUPTA
in the house which was the home of their relatives - The accused miserably failed to prove plea of alibi, which has rightly been rejected ... These arguments were also dealt with in detail and rejected by the learned trial court. ... Appeal to the extent of those accused-appellants would obviously stand abated. ... 23. ... Contention of defence that the prosecution is bound by the evidence of its witnesses, therefore, conviction of the accused cannot be justified, is noted to be rejected. ... The trial court has, thus, ....
1993 0 Supreme(All) 276 • India - Allahabad
G.P.MATHUR
The application for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently the cross-objection was also dismissed. The High Court, thereafter rejected the claim of the tenure-holder for interest w. e. f. 19/11/1949. ... If several suits are decided by a common judgment and separate appeals are preferred, the appeals do not become incompetent merely on the ground that one of the appeals has abated, or is dismissed on some grounds other than the merits of the appeal. ... DURING the course of hearing of the appeals learned counsel for the respon....
2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1531 • India - Bombay
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
The Trial Court rejected the interim relief application, which the Revisional Court later reversed. ... (Paras 63(b), 64) ... ... Issues: The main issues included whether the force majeure clause applied, whether the ... In the present case, the trial Court has rejected the application for deposit of arrears of license fees. ... By order dated 5th February 2021, the trial Court rejected the application as against which the plaintiff filed Revision Application No. 40 of 2021. ... The proposal was rejected#HL_E....
1966 0 Supreme(Mad) 177 • India - Madras
K.S.RAMAMURTI, M.ANANTANARAYANAN, K.S.VENKATARAMAN
An order directing a plaint to be rejected or taken off the file amounts to a final disposal of the suit so far as the Court making the order is concerned. ... The learned Subordinate Judge had rejected the application on the ground that the allegations did not show a cause of action (Order 33, rule 5 (d), Civil Procedure Code). ... Administrator-General of Madras2, put the matter thus at page 691: ... “Those cases dealt with the position of suits which had already abated and the question was whether an order setting asi....
2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 341 • India - Karnataka
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
been made and contentions which have been raised have been deprecated - All contentions which have been raised by ITI have been rejected ... Result: Suit dismissed. ... The same being completely contractual and no principles of equity having been applied even this argument raised by learned Senior counsel for ITI under Section 28(2) of A&C Act will have to be rejected and as such, is rejected. 37.7. ... The objections raised by the respondent is that the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are not maintainable and liab....
2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2878 • India - Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA, CHANDER SHEKHAR
Pandey [(2004) 5 SCC 26 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1521], this Court rejected the plea of the contemnors that the High Court could not initiate the contempt proceedings in respect of the contempt of the courts subordinate to it placing ... In Kanwar Singh Saini versus High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307, the Supreme Court had cautioned that if there is non-compliance of a decree passed in a civil suit, the remedy available to an aggrieved person in case of non-compliance of a decree passed in a civil suit is ... Dolphin Canadian Proteins Ltd. [(1....
• India - Crimes
GOKUL CHAND MITAL
But if they main rain orderly, good and disciplined behaviour and do not indulge themselves in the repetition of such 8CJS within ... The most unfortunate, painful and unprecedented incidents of 26th September, 1991 show how responsibly the contemners, aided and, abated by other lawyers, behaved. ... Five more contemners followed suit. The odd contemnor out, Mr. ... When this request was rejected and the arguments continued, there were repeated requests by the advocates appearing for the contemnors to adjourn the hearing....
2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1723 • India - Gujarat
ANANT S.DAVE, G.R.UDHWANI
Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for SIT shall also inform respective authorities in this regard – Applications are rejected ... In view of the above, appeal qua Saukat @Bhano Farook Abdul Sattar Pataliya is abated. ... Application Nos. 3101, 2168, 1665 and 4143 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 556, 590, 629 and 743 of 2011 are hereby rejected. ... However, the biggest factor which suggests that this form of offensive behaviour had abated is that not one officer of either the RPF or the State police was hit b....
1991 0 Supreme(Del) 704 • India - Delhi
R.L.GUPTA, Y.K.SABHARWAL, V.B.BANSAL, USHA MEHRA, SUNANDA BHANDARE, SAT PAL, S.B.WAD, P.N.NAG, P.K.BAHRI, MOHD.SHAMIM, MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN, A.D.SINGH, J.K.MEHRA, G.C.MITTAL, D.P.WADHWA, D.K.JAIN, S.C.JAIN, C.M.NAYAR, C.L.CHAUDHRY, B.N.KIRPAL, ARUN KUMAR, ARUN B.SAHARYA, ANIL KUMAR, JASPAL SINGH
The most unfortunate, painful and unprecedented incidents of 26th September, 1991 show how responsibly the contemners, aided and abated by other lawyers, behaved. ... Five more contemners followed suit. The odd contemner out, Mr. ... When this request was rejected and the arguments continued, there were repeated requests by the advocates appearing for the contemnors to adjourn the hearing on one ground or another. It was stated by Shri Rajiv Khosla that he wanted to engage Shri Ram Jethamalani, who was out of station. ... Fearless and ind....
1967 0 Supreme(Cal) 225 • India - Calcutta
B.C.MITRA, AMARESH ROY, A.N.RAY, B.N.SINHA, B.N.BANERJEE
Acharya who appeared in support of that application, it was rejected by this Bench in view of the Minutes dated 4th of September, 1967 mentioned above. ... C. and that abetment is criminal offence, if the act abated is a criminal offence. ... ( 116 ) IF the act which is offence is done by 5 or more persons participating in it by sharing a common object within Section 141 I. ... Both these contentions have to be stated only to be rejected for the reason that the provisions in those two Sections do not give any discretion at all though the....
Filter by Legal Phrase
