Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2010

Pradeep Kashinathrao Kalyankar And ... vs Pramod Kashinathrao Kalyankar And ... on 19 July, 2017

In Sandeep Thaper Vs. SME Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [ AIR 2014 SC 897 = (2014) 2 SCC 302] , the Honourable Apex Court has evolved the reasons, as to why a written statement is to be permitted even beyond limitation prescribed under VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is observed that the purpose for providing the time schedule for filing a Written Statement is to ensure timely ::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2017 00:15:49 ::: WP/8001/2014 12 disposal of the suit and to avoid delay being caused by the defendants. However, extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception and for reasons to be assigned by the defendants. Such extension of time is to be permitted if it was appropriate to be granted on the basis of circumstances, which are exceptional and have occasioned for reasons beyond the control of the defendants and to ensure that grave injustice is not caused to the defendants. As such, by imposing costs of RS.50,000/- the Honourable Apex Court has permitted the filing of the written statement beyond the period prescribed under Order VIIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Nanded vs Vilas Shankarrao Panpatte on 17 January, 2017

2. By this Writ Petition, the order of No W.S. passed on 30/9/2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded has been challenged and another order dated 4/1/2017, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, refusing to recall the order dated 30/9/2016. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:13:23 ::: Writ Petition No.702/2017 2 Nanded has not taken into consideration the nature of provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has now been settled by the catena of judments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is settled law that, this provision being in the domain of procedural law and having been not accompanied by any penalty for non-compliance, has been held to be directory and not mandatory. Useful refrence in this regard could be made to the judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. Sme Technologies Private Limited reported in 2014 AIR (SC) 897. The reasons stated by the petitioner for his failure to file written statemnent within the stipulated period of time disclose sufficient cause to file written statemnet.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - 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

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