Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In a suit for permanent injunction against a defendant company, the Plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from prosecution the suit in a foreign court,

In a suit for permanent injunction against a defendant company, the Plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from prosecution the suit in a foreign court, Correct Answer A temporary injunction restraining the defendant from prosecuting the foreign suit can be granted if the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court

Related Questions

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?
Plaintiff was the chairperson of the town meeting. The defendant having been very vociferous, a motion was made and carried out by majority that the defendant be turned out. The defendant said he would rather pull out the plaintiff than he turned out. He advanced menacingly towards the plaintiff with clinched fists, but his advance was prevented by a warden. Decide appropriate civil action against the defendant for his action against the plaintiff.
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff, finding the possession of the Plaintiff to be settled, would operate as res judicata in a suit for partition filed by the Defendant for the same property.
Which of the following requirements form an essential element of the tort of malicious prosecution?
1. Prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant
2. Termination of the case in favour of the defendant
3. Termination of the case in favour of the plaintiff
4. Presence of reasonable and probable cause
5. Absence of reasonable and probable cause
6. Malice on the part of the defendant
7. Damage suffered by the plaintiff
Select the correct answer using the given below:
Which of the following statements is/are correct in connection with malicious prosecution?
1. Malice is to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
2. Malice is not to be inferred from the acquittal of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff must prove independently of the acquittal that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause,
4. The plaintiff is not required to prove that his prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
Select the correct answer using the given below:
The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances.
In a suit for recovery of Rs. 25 lakh, the Defendant files its written statement and pleads that it does not owe any money to the Plaintiff but in fact, it is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 40 lakh from the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, does not file a counter claim. Can the Defendant file the counter claim at a subsequent stage in the suit or file a fresh suit seeking recovery of Rs, 40 lakhs?