Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2010

M/S Focus Paper Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Biotropic Pharma Pvt. Ltd on 21 May, 2014

In Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Pvt. Ltd., it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "A prayer for CS No. 636/13 M/s Focus Paper Pvt. Ltd. VS. M/s Biotropic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 15 extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit of documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Bhadraiah vs Smt Pramila on 11 July, 2019

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDEEP THAPAR VS. SME TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED reported in AIR 2014 SCW 431, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on its judgment in the case of R.N.JADI AND BROTHERS AND OTHERS VS. SUBHASHCHANDRA reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420 (3 Judges Bench) proceeded to allow the application imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by the petitioner to the plaintiff before the trial Court. The judgment now relied upon by 5 the review petitioner was not brought to the notice of this Court, when this Court passed the order on merits. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for review petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This court relied upon the judgment of the Three Judges Bench and proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner has not made out any prima facie case on the face of the record to interfere with the impugned order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Balwinder Singh @ Balwinder Singh ... vs Badlu Ram & Anr on 19 September, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Thappar v. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729. In this case written statement was not filed within the limitation under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the defendant was permitted to file written statement beyond the period of limitation on payment of costs of `50,000/-. It was held that Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. The extension may be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Balwinder Singh @ Balwinder Singh ... vs Sat Narain & Anr on 19 September, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Thappar v. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 729. In this case written statement was not filed within the limitation under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the defendant was permitted to file written statement beyond the period of limitation on payment of costs of `50,000/-. It was held that Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. The extension may be given for circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Chandubhai @ Amarsang Bhayabhai vs Rasiklal Manilal Kherdiya (Darji) on 14 October, 2015

4. Petitioner is also relying upon the decision in case of Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited reported in 2014 AIR (SCW) 431 by the full bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein it is held that rejection of application for accepting written statement after prescribed period of limitation, is not justified and thereby defendant was allowed to file written statement but with an order of payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-. Honourable Supreme Court has discussed the relevant provisions and deemed it fit to allow the defendant to submit written statement with such heavy cost because dispute involved between the parties is to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. Whereas in the present case, the dispute is pertaining to possession of land. Therefore, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner - defendant to file the written statement on payment of cost of Rs.5000/-.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document

Kusum Singh vs Shatrughan Soni on 31 August, 2024

3. Challenging the orders passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioner No.1 was not well and petitioner No.2 has shifted to Australia, therefore they could not file the written statement within time. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 and Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 302, it is clear that the outer limit of 90 days is not mandatory and if a party discloses the exceptional circumstance for not filing the written statement within the extended period of 90 days, then the time for filing the written statement can be extended.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Ludari Ram vs Sanjay Talwar on 18 February, 2022

3. Mr. Amarvir Singh Manhas, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law particularly when the respondent had miserably failed to demonstrate the good cause for his non-appearance on the date he was set ex-parte. Mr. Manhas places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled, 'Sandeep Thapar 2 CR No. 50/2019 vs. SME Technologies Private Limited' reported in 2014 Legal Eagle (SC) 4805 to demonstrate that heavy cost was required to be imposed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Oswal - 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
1