Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2010

Gyan Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Smt. Mamta Sinha @ Rupam & Ors on 17 August, 2016

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. S.M.E. Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2014(2)PLJR 284 S.C. has held that 'the provision as contained under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory. The Court has the power to extend Patna High Court C.Misc. No.189 of 2016 (2) dt.17-08-2016 4/9 time for filing written statement beyond time schedule and this power of the Court is not taken away but the extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner, but only if it was needed to be given in exceptional cases so as to prevent grave injustice and for that cost may be awarded.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Damodar Choudhary vs Shek Jamil & Anr on 25 January, 2016

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of some unavoidable circumstances, the written statement could not be filed by the petitioner. He appeared in the suit on 24.02.2012 but he was debarred from filing the written statement on 05.10.2012 although, prayer was made for adjournment for Patna High Court CWJC No.3494 of 2014 (4) dt.25-01-2016 2 filing written statement. The petitioner filed application assigning reason for the grant of time to file written statement. The Court below rejected the application and thereafter the petitioner filed recall application which has been rejected by the Court below without considering the fact that still the date of order dated 05.10.2012, issues were not even framed. The learned counsel relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technology Private Limited, 2014(2) PLJR 284(SC) submitted that the petitioner is ready to compensate the other side and, therefore, for ends of justice, the order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to file written statement. According to the learned counsel, written statement had already been filed, therefore, the same may be accepted.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Misri Lal Ram & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 January, 2016

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(2) PLJR 284(SC) has held that "power of court to extend time for filing written statement beyond time schedule prescribed by Rule 1 is not taken away completely." It appears that in that case also, the defendants were debarred from filing the written statement. The High Court refused to allow them to file written statement. The Patna High Court CWJC No.5910 of 2015 (2) dt.28-01-2016 3 Supreme Court awarding cost directed that the written statement be accepted.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Khalil Shah & Ors vs Raso Shah on 21 April, 2016

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technology Private Limited, 2014(1) PLJR 284 relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 held that power of Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond time scheduled prescribed by Rule 1 of Order 8 is not taken away completely, therefore, extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner but only if it was needed, to be given in exceptional cases. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that cost may be imposed and affidavit and document in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded depending Patna High Court CWJC No.977 of 2015 (4) dt.21-04-2016 3 on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Murari Prasad vs Puniya Devi & Ors on 12 July, 2016

It appears that earlier the defendants were debarred from filing the written statement. Subsequently they appeared and filed application for condoning the delay and for accepting the written statement. The court below considered the grounds for condoning the delay and thereafter considered the settled principles of law and held, for the interest of justice, that the written statement filed by defendants is to be accepted. Therefore, the court below awarded cost and then has accepted the written statement. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the court below has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement even after 90 days. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Patna High Court CWJC No.1025 of 2016 (2) dt.12-07-2016 2 Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (2) P.L.J.R. 284 (SC) that power of Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond time schedule prescribed by Rule 1 is not taken away completely. Extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner but only if it was needed to be given in exception cases so as to grave injustice. In the present case, the Court considered the explanation for delay and thereafter it has condoned the same and extended time. The written statement has already been filed, which has been accepted.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Jaswant Singh vs Sahdeo Vishwakarma on 29 August, 2016

Admittedly, the witnesses were examined when no written statement was filed by the respondent and he did not cross- examine the witnesses, therefore, the petitioner had the right to re- examine them as witness in the court. The order, therefore, is within the jurisdiction of the court, as such, the learned court below has rightly accepted the written statement after condoning Patna High Court C.Misc. No.458 of 2016 (2) dt.29-08-2016 2 the delay on payment of cost in view of the decision of Supreme Court, 2014 (2) PLJR 284 (SC) (Sandeep Thapar Vs. S.M.E. Technologies Private Limited).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Shankar Sah vs Girja Devi on 21 February, 2017

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Patna High Court C.Misc. No.905 of 2016 (3) dt.21-02-2017 2 Thapar v. S.M.E. Technologies Private Limited, 2014(2) PLJR 284(SC) referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors., (2005)4 Supreme Court Cases 480 has held that the provision as contained in Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory. The court has the power to extend time for filing written statement and the time schedule and this power of the court is not taken away but the extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner but if it was needed to be given in exceptional cases so as to prevent grave injustice and for that cost may be awarded.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document

Md. Gosh vs Bibi Samima Khatoon & Ors. on 7 August, 2017

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (2) P.L.J.R. 284 (SC) has held that the power of Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond time schedule prescribed by Rule 1 is not taken away completely. Extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner but only if it was needed to be given in exceptional cases so as to prevent grave injustice and the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in appropriate cases to compensate the other side cost may be awarded and in that the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs.50,000/- cost for filing written statement. However, in the present case the written Patna High Court CWJC No.14081 of 2012 (5) dt.07-08-2017 3 statement has already been filed by the present petitioner. The court below has, therefore, wrongly not exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law and did not consider that if the defendant no.5- petitoner is not allowed to contest the suit, it will prejudice the petitioner and also it will be injustice to the petitioner.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M Sahoo - Full Document
1