Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Universal Builders & Contractors vs Sheila Singh Uppal & Others on 17 October, 2008

Neetender Soni vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 May, 2019

Honest effort was made by learned advocate for the petitioner to derive benefit favourable to the purpose of petitioner by making reference to a Delhi High Court judgement rendered in the case of Universal Builders and Constrictors vs. Sheila Singh Uppal & Ors. reported in 2009(3) CiVCC178:2009(2) PLR (Delhi) 47:2008(20)R.C.R.(Civil)485, the relevant text mentioned in para 12 of such decision may be mentioned as hereinunder:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Dasgupta - Full Document

Bisamber Dayal vs Muralidhar & Others on 10 July, 2012

On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that averments made in the restoration application are also sufficient to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the restoration application and, therefore, the restoration application could not be dismissed merely because formal application for condonation of the said delay was not filed. Reliance in support CR No.2516 of 2011 -3- of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely Karam Pal versus Ramesh Jain, 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 613 of this Court; Canara Bank versus Prem Bhusan Dewan, 1992(2) RRR 444; Universal Builders and Contractors versus Sheila Singh Uppal & others, 2009 (3) CivCC 178 of Delhi High Court; Munishwari Devi versus Jitan Singh, 1993(2) LJR 674 of Allahabad High Court and The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna versus Pawan Kumar Khetan and others, 1978 AIR (Patna) 253 of Patna High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - L N Mittal - Full Document

Surender Pal vs Raj Singh And Ors on 3 August, 2016

The application itself was filed on 10.03.2016 along with affidavit of the petitioner. There was a delay of 3 days in moving the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 05:24:26 ::: CM No.10339-CII of 2016 in CR No.1845 of 2013 4 application for restoration of the petition which according to learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner can be condoned without moving application for condonation of delay and in view of averments made in the application for restoration. [7]. The reliance was placed upon Universal Builders and Contractors Vs. Sheila Singh Uppal and others, 2009(2) PLR (Delhi) 47 and Nand Singh and Estate Officer, 1992(2) R.R.R. 516 wherein it was held that filing of application in writing under Section 5 of limitation Act is not essential. Delay can be condoned even on oral application if sufficient cause for causing delay is shown by the party. According to learned counsel, filing of application with delay of 3 days was not such omission as would warrant dismissal of the same in the absence of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [8].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1