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

3 SCC 100Reported decision2006#20366 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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

ITTA/351/2019HC Telangana01 Nov 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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

ITTA/11/2023HC Telangana27 Jul 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

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…