Cross Action - Judgment Search Results

Cofex Exports Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi355; II(1997)BC438; [1998]92CompCas583(Delhi); 1997(43)DRJ754

..... a demand against a plaintiff was compelled to resort either to his cross action or a bill in chancery except in the few instances in which ..... put it differently the set off is in the nature of a cross action which would be separately entertained 21 in laxmi dass v nanabhai 1964 ..... in the defense it should be left to be settled by a cross action in a court having jurisdiction to entertain it 25 in sri .....

Washington-southern Nav. Co. Vs. Baltimore Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the right to prosecute his cause of action either by a cross libel or by an independent cross action footnote 2 an intention to introduce a ..... libel was filed by a nonresident libelant substituted service in a cross action by serving his proctor was not permitted until this was ..... steamer bristol 4 ben 55 the stay was denied because the cross action was in rem the vessel was without the jurisdiction and .....

Adam Vs. Saenger

Court: US Supreme Court

..... only upon such parties as have not appeared in the action footnote 1 arguing that action means only cross action and not the original action brought by the plaintiff the texas court concluded page 303 ..... a single ground want of jurisdiction of the california court over the corporation in the cross action in which the judgment was rendered construing the california statutes page 303 u s 62 .....

(Firm) Bansi Dhar Kunji Lal Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1934All543; 150Ind.Cas.433

..... amount equal to the plaintiff s claim he had to bring a cross action for the balance 7 on p 254 odgers says the judicature act ..... the plaintiff s claim and that a defendant had to bring a cross action for the balance due to him over what was due to the ..... is still a defence proper to the plaintiff s action while a counter claim is practically a cross action 8 on p 255 odgers states the modern counter .....

Vediammal and ors. Vs. M. Kandasamy and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1997)1MLJ529

..... a defence it is in the nature of a proceeding in a cross action and when necessary for the purposes of justice it must be so ..... have the same effect as a statement of claim in a cross action so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in ..... the defendant should have a cause of action against the plaintiff and should be in the nature of a cross action against the plaintiff and not merely .....

Waco Vs. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the federal page 293 u s 142 court jurisdiction that the cross action and the removal proceeding were collusively filed to deprive the ..... the circuit court in its opinion states the city by cross action as permitted by the texas practice vouched in the fidelity ..... circuit court of appeals determine whether the dismissal of its cross action against the fidelity company was proper if the district court .....

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Afcons Gunanusa Jv

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... rules of pleading as a plaint a counter claim is substantially a cross action not merely a defence to the plaintiff s claim it must ..... the principle that a counter claim is to be treated as a cross action and is not affected by anything which relates solely to the ..... same transaction counter claim on the other hand is regarded as a cross action when a counter claim is not connected with the claim in .....

Aminchand Pyarelal Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1977)79BOMLR1

..... counter claim must be borne in mind in one sense both are cross actions but a set off is also a ground of defence if established ..... enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectually as in an independent action it is allowed to be pleaded by the defendant at his option ..... enforce a claim against the plaintiff as effectively as in an independent action najan v salemahomed 1922 24 bom l r 998 and lassoo .....

Grubbs Vs. General Elec. Credit Corp.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... 25 000 seeking damages for slander conversion and conspiracy in restraint of trade a later cross action included the united states which held a judgment against petitioner as a party defendant the ..... respondent likewise filed an answer the following year petitioner filed a second amended answer and cross actions one of which included the united states as an added party defendant the basis asserted .....

The North Star

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the said damage with the costs to be equally divided between the respective owners the cross action however having been abandoned the court made its decree for a moiety of the damage ..... put in a counterclaim the substitute created by the late judicature act for the old cross action both parties being declared in fault a reference was made to the register to ascertain .....