Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Davinder Pal Sehgal & Anr vs M/S Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. ... on 13 December, 2001

Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative ... vs National Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 17 September, 2024

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and after having perused the impugned orders, I am of the view that th thee matter need not be remanded back to the Sub Sub-Divisional Divisional 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 06:24:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122408 CWP-15606-2024 2024 -10- Officer for giving a specific finding as to whether delay had to be condoned. As per the law laid down in (2002) 3 SCC 156 : (2002) AIR (SC) 451 (Davinder Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt Pvt. Ltd.), (2010) 12 SCC 159 : 2010 AIR (SC) 2991 ((Bhagmal v. Kunwar Lal)) and 2014 (123) RD 254 ((Indrajeet Singh v. D.D.C. Gorakhpur) when the Court had restored the Suit it shall be deemed it had condoned the delay. The Court shall now proceed with the suit as was filed by the respondent No. 5, Indra Dev, afresh and shall decide the same within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Till the suit is decided status quo shall be maintained over the property in question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satyendra Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 17 March, 2025

"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and after having perused the impugned orders, I am of the view that the matter need not be remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for giving a specific finding as to whether delay had to be condoned. As per the law laid down in (2002) 3 SCC 156 (Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.); (2010) 12 SCC 159 (Bhagmal v. Kunwar Lal) and 2014 (123) RD 254 (Indrajeet Singh v. D.D.C. Gorakhpur) when the Court had restored the Suit it shall be deemed it had condoned the delay. the Court shall now proceed with the suit as was filed by the respondent No. 5, Indra Dev, afresh and shall decide the same within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Till the suit is decided status quo shall be maintained over the property in question."
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document

M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.Barabanki ... vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Gomti ... on 31 May, 2018

?While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills(P) Ltd., Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao , Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand, Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd.. and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises)?.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - I Ali - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner, vs . Monen Sangma on 21 May, 2019

While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Madanlal v. Shyamlal, Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand, Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises.)
Meghalaya High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - H S Thangkhiew - Full Document

Girish Mittal vs Prateek Madhan And Ors. on 13 May, 2021

15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [(2002) 3 SCC 156], Ram Nath Saov.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document

M/S. Hira Sweets & Confectionary Pvt. ... vs Hira Confectioners on 27 April, 2021

15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and CS(COMM) 17/2018 Page 5 of 9 doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [(2002) 3 SCC 156], Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195], Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand [(2005) 10 SCC 127], Srei International Finance Ltd.v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 95] and Reena Sadh v. Aniana Enterprises [(2008) 12 SCC 589].)
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - M K Ohri - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Police & Anr. vs Smt. Neelam Rani & Ors. on 14 October, 2022

15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [(2002) 3 SCC 156], Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195], Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand [(2005) 10 SCC 127], Srei International Finance Ltd.v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 95] and Reena Sadh v. Aniana Enterprises [(2008) 12 SCC 589].) FAO 153/2022 Page 8 of 10 Digitally Signed By:SANGEETA ANAND Signing Date:14.10.2022 17:15:12
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - M K Ohri - Full Document

G. Saraswathi vs G. Malleswari on 4 November, 2022

15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [2002) 3 SCC 156], Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195], Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand [(2005) 10 SCC 127], Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 95] and Reena Sadh v. Aniana Enterprises [2008 : (2008) 12 SCC 589].)
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri R Ravichandar vs Sri N Mubeen on 8 December, 2022

concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (2000) 9 SCC 94, Madanlal v. Shyamlal (2002) 1 SCC 535, Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (2002) 3 SCC 156, Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195], Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand [(2005) 10 SCC 127], SREI International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. [(2005) 13 SCC 95] and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises (2008) 12 SCC 589.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

Umang Sahai Aggarwal vs Jai Prakash And Anr on 13 April, 2023

15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, Madanlal v. Shyamlal, Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, Kaushalya Devi v. Prem Chand, Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises.)
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next