citedby: 125076989 tag: limitation

Subbaiah vs Rajagopal on 12 October, 2018

In fact, the Delhi High Court also in the decision in Universal Builders & Contractors v. Sheila Singh Uppal & Others, has observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down such a proposition. Since the Delhi High Court has also proceeded on such an impression, I am of the view that I should not take a harsh view of the approach of the Courts below.

Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - 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

) By This Order I Shall Disposed Off An ... vs . on 13 March, 2012

7) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff sought reliance on the case of "Universal Builder and Contractor Vs. Sheela Singh Uppal and Ors." where it is held that "The power of the Court to condon the delay is not circumscribed by application being filed, Court can be satisfied even from the affidavit or documents on record".

Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwar Saini vs M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd. & Anr. on 14 September, 2015

6. I have carefully considered the submission and have gone through the record. There can be no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court wherein it has been categorically reiterated that filing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not sine qua non for condonation of delay.

Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Civil Judge/Central-01/Delhi vs Orissa State Financial on 22 March, 2012

Applicant has also relied upon the case of Universal Builders and Contractors vs. Sheila Singh Uppal & Ors. 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 69, wherein the court had allowed application under Order 9 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5000/-.

Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chahat Ram vs Union Of India on 23 September, 2010

5. It is correct that separate application U/s 5 of Limitation Act is not filed by the appellant and there is no application to condone the delay. It was held by their lordship in Universal Builders and Contractors v. Sheela Singh Uppal and others, 154 (2008) DLT 69. that no separate application for condonation of delay U/s 5 of Limitation Act is required.