Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Shethia Mining & Manufacturing ... vs Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt. ... on 30 April, 1982

Smt. Poonam Bhanot vs Virender Sharma & Ors on 18 July, 2022

11. The Calcutta High Court in Sethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt Ltd AIR 1982 Cal 413 examined the question whether after passing an order fixing specific time, the court becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain a prayer for extension of time. It was observed that courts in procedural matters do pass conditional or even peremptory orders but these orders are in terrorem for purpose of compelling a litigant to comply with the procedure and avoid prolongation of a suit or proceeding. It would be incorrect to state that the court is rendered powerless to extend time initially granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Syed Ali Murtuza Quadri vs Syed Abdul Raoof Quadri And Four Ors. on 4 October, 2007

(1) Patna High Court in Shae Najiruddin Ahmed v. Amir Hasan Khan and Ors. AIR 1934 Patna page 443; (2) the judgment of Lahore in Mian Ahmed v. Mian Ghulam and Ors. reported in AIR (36) 1949 Lahore 65 page; (3) Privy Council in Sain Maule Shah v. Ghane Shah and Ors. reported in AIR 1938 Privy Council page 202; (4) Khawaja Muhammad v. Mian Mahmud and Ors. reported in 1922 Privy Council 384; (5) In Gulam Mohammad v. Abdul Rashid reported in AIR 1933 Lahore page 905; (6) Mian Ahmed Yar v. Main Ghulam Nabi and Ors. reported in AIR 1949 Lahore page 65; (7) In Cherupu Veneeta @ Babu Rao v. State of A.P. reported in 1968 (1) Weekly Reporter page 251; (8) judgment of Calcutta High Court in Shethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Liberty Footwear Company vs M/S. Force Footwear Company & Others on 18 September, 2009

11. The Calcutta High Court in Sethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd versus Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt Ltd AIR 1982 Cal. 413 examined the question whether after passing an order fixing specific time, the court becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain a WPC NOS.8801-02/2009 Page 8 prayer for extension of time. It was observed that courts in procedural matters do pass conditional or even peremptory orders but these orders are in terrorem for purpose of compelling a litigant to comply with the procedure and avoid prolongation of a suit or proceeding. It would be incorrect to state that the court is rendered powerless to extend time initially granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - S Khanna - Full Document

Ila Kayal vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 30 June, 2006

4. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on referring to the provisions of Sections 61, 62 and 64 Cr.PC and relying upon the case of Shethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1982(II) CHN 49 contended that merely because this Court directed the learned Court below to dispose of the case within a period of three months, it does not necessary follow that the learned Court below was free to violate the provisions of the Code to secure the attendance of the witnesses necessary for adjudication of the case thereby causing injustice to the complainant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrimati Nupur Agarwal vs Amit Agarwal on 24 April, 2000

4. Mr. Sudish Dasgupta, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the wife/defendant upon reference to the decision of this Court reported in 1982(2) CHN 49 (Shethia Mining & Mfg. Corpn. Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd. contended that the order for disposal of the suit within a particular date was in the nature of an order in terrorem so that the disposal of the suit is not delayed unnecessarily and for an indefinite period but such an order fixing a deadline for disposal of the suit under no circumstances should be taken to mean that no adjournment of the hearing of the suit would be allowed even under compelling circumstances, which may even result in crossing the deadline fixed by this Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjan Chatterjee (Deceased) And Sri ... vs Sri Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 1 August, 2006

5. On the strength of the decisions of this Court in Draupadi Dasya v. Rajkumari Dasya and Ors. reported at 22 CWN 564, and Shethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery Company Pvt. Ltd. reported at , he argues that in the interest of justice the caveator should be permitted to file the supplementary affidavit. He says that in view of the provisions in Rule 46 of Chapter 38 of the original side rules of this Court, time to file an appropriate affidavit in support of the caveat can be extended.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J K Biswas - Full Document

Ranjan Chatterjee (Deceased By Lrs) vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma on 1 August, 2006

6. On the strength of the decisions of this Court in Draupadi Dasya v. Rajkumari Dasya reported at (1918) 22 CWN 564 : AIR 1919 Cal 1012 and Shethia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Khas Dharmaband Colliery reported at , he argues that in the interest of justice the caveator should be permitted to file the supplementary affidavit. He says that in view of the provisions in Rule 46 of Chapter 38 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, time to file an appropriate affidavit in support of the caveat can be extended.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - J K Biswas - Full Document
1