Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2010

Gram Panchayat Dawla And Ors vs Zile Singh And Ors on 13 August, 2018

In view of ratio of Kailash vs. Nanku and others, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 379; Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R (Civil) 729 ; Sita Ram and others vs. Gurbax Singh and others, 2013(4) Law Herald 3436; Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha vs. Shamsher Singh, 2014(2) Law Herald 1762; Surinder Mittal vs. Pooja Mittal, 2013(1) Law Herald 24 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the rule of procedure has to be treated as directory even though the same is couched in a mandatory overtone.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Pyare Lal vs Satender And Another on 11 January, 2019

[7]. The aforesaid view was again reiterated in Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 23:19:08 ::: CR No.120 of 2019 3 R.C.R. (Civil) 729 wherein it was held that the provision in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days, of course such power has to be exercised in special circumstances. [8].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Surender & Ors vs Mari @ Chander Kalan & Anr on 5 February, 2019

In Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379; Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, it was held that the provisions in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend time for filing written statement even beyond the period of 90 days, of course with some restraint. The provision is to be liberally construed being directory in nature, though the same has been couched in a mandatory overtone. Even defendant can be put to terms including imposition of adequate costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Deep Chand (Since Deceased ) Through His ... vs Bhim Singh And Others on 28 February, 2019

In Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379; Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, it was held that the provisions in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend time for filing written statement even beyond the period of 90 days, of course with some restraint. The provision is to be liberally construed being directory in nature, though the same has been couched in a mandatory overtone. Even defendant can be put to terms including imposition of adequate costs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Bharti And Others vs Indrawati And Others on 14 March, 2019

The view expressed in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others case (supra) has been reiterated in Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 729 and it was held that the provision does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days. The provision has to be considered as directory even if the same has been couched in a mandatory overtone.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Sanjiv Bajaj vs Rajiv Bajaj And Others on 12 April, 2019

[5]. The provision in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature, though the same has been couched in a mandatory overtone. In an appropriate case, the Court can extend the time for filing written statement even beyond the period of 90 days. Reference can be made to Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379; Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Chetan Kharbanda vs Pooja Ahuja on 4 December, 2019

In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, rigour of M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. vs. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2019(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 249 (SC) decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall not apply, rather ratio of Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors., 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 379, followed in Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729 and Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 would apply to the facts of the present case as period of 120 days required for forfeiting the right of the defendant/respondent to file written statement has not elapsed from the date of first appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court (Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). [5]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to accept this revision petition. The impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) is set aside. Normal consequences to follow. Petitioner may file his written statement on 06.01.2020 i.e. the date fixed before the trial Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Harjinder Kaur And Anr vs Jaimal Singh And Ors on 13 December, 2017

[7]. The view expressed in Kailash's case (supra) was further approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729, wherein it was held that the provision in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days, of course under exceptional circumstances such a course should be allowed in the interest of justice and in exceptional cases.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Sushil Kumar vs Baldev Raj And Ors on 19 December, 2017

[4] The view expressed in Kailash's case (supra) was further approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 729, wherein it was held that the provision in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC does not impose any embargo on the powers of the Court to extend the time for filing written statement beyond the period of 90 days. However, the said exercise 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2017 01:54:20 ::: CR No. 5920 of 2017 -3- should be taken in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is satisfied about the non-existence of laxity and gross negligence on the part of the defendant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next