10. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors.

3 SCC 100Reported decision2006#20464 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 10. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. M/s. Chillara Kalyan

The appeals are disposed of accordingly along with

ITTA/351/2019HC Telangana01 Nov 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 173Section 2(9)

…the insurance company must prove that the breach being alleged was fundamental in nature. Reference in this regard can also be made to a Three Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakhmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance (2016) 3 SCC 100. In view of above, respondent no.3 is even not held entitled to any recovery rights and it being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the above award amount with the UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners within 30 days from today, failing which it will be liable to…

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITTA/11/2023HC Telangana27 Jul 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 115

…lear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, to adjudicate upon the grounds mentioned therein. The said principle was also followed in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100, wherein it was held that at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court is not required to see the veracity of averments or correctness of the documents. It is also not to be seen by the Court at such stage whether the documents filed along with the plaint are false or genuine or bogus. The same is a mat…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. OSCAR INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeal is allowed and the suit instituted by the

ITA/86/2019HC Delhi04 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 151

…the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities." 10. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. reported as (2006) 3 SCC 100, the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the spectrum of an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint and had held thus:- "11. Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the Court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the va…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-I vs. SURESH NANDA,

Accordingly, the present application is allowed

ITA/501/2016HC Delhi30 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…aint of the property at the time of acquisition/construction being of a coparcenary or of the defendant no. 1 holding the same for the benefit of coparceners in the family. …. 23. The Supreme Court in Mayor (H.K.) Vs. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 and recently followed by the Division Bench of this Court Santosh Malik Vs. Maharaj Krishan MANU/DE/0448/2012 while upholding the order of rejection of the plaint on the ground of the claim therein being barred by the Benami Act, held that the plaint has to be read meaningfully and not formally and it is the duty of the Court to see whether a…