Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs Pukhraj Jain And Ors. on 24 October, 2000

Piyush Kumar vs Ravindra Nath on 25 July, 2023

9. This Court also observes that in the suit filed by the respondents in the year 2007 i.e. 15 years ago, despite being afforded several opportunities to lead evidence, the respondents (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:16:50 AM) (6 of 6) [CW-1764/2022] failed to do so, and when the matter was finally heard and the date for pronouncement of final judgment was also fixed, the respondents moved the application in question seeking further opportunity to lead evidence, which cannot be permissible under the law, and thus, the learned Court ought not have allowed the said application vide the impugned order. This observation derives strength also from the precedent law laid down in the case Arjun Kumar Vs Mohinder kumar (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajasthan Financial Coproration Vs. Pukhraj Jain & Ors (Supra). Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Shri Sanjay Sharma vs Smt. Pooja Sharma on 5 May, 2011

20. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) has also been followed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj Jain and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj 71 where the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC moved by the plaintiff after the case was reserved for judgment holding that no application could be moved after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment since as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically decided in the case of Arjun Singh Vs.Mohindra Kumar that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment, it could not be said that there can be any stage in between the closure of the case for judgment and the pronouncement of the judgment itself.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Col. Rajinder Singh (Retired) vs Sh. Simran Singh on 17 April, 2012

10. Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj Jain and Others, AIR 2001 Rajasthan 71 (Jaipur Bench) wherein it was held that filing of an application U/O 13 Rule 2 CPC after arguments were over was not permissible as there was no stage in between closure of case for judgment and pronouncement of judgment. Suit No. 2316/08 Col. Rajender Singh vs Simran Singh Page No. 28/38 However, judgments cited at Sl. no. 3, 4, 6 and 7 above are not relevant for the purpose of decision of issues in hands. Citations Relied upon by the Defendants:
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Lal Chand vs Sh. Gian Chand on 21 November, 2011

34. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (Supra) has also been followed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj Jain and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Raj 71 where the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC moved by the plaintiff after the case was reserved for judgment holding that no application could be moved after the arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment since as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically decided in the case of Arjun Singh Vs.Mohindra Kumar that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncement of judgment, it could not be said that there can be any stage in between the closure of the case for judgment and the pronouncement of the judgment itself.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Choudhary vs Shyam Lal Choudhary & Anr on 3 October, 2017

Further, this Court in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation (supra) following the judgment in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), wherein an application under then existing provisions of Order XIII, Rule 2 CPC was moved by the plaintiff after the trial of the suit was complete and the case was reserved for judgment for placing on record certain documents, laid down that such an application was not maintainable.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

M/S. Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative ... vs Ravi Sethia on 21 August, 2025

"13. It is a well settled proposition of law that the two stages of reserving of judgment and pronouncement of judgment are in a continuum with no hiatus or gap as such in the two stages. That being the well accepted and time-tested practice in court proceedings, subsequent pleadings filed by way of an Page 44 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 I.A. after the judgement is reserved is normally not entertained for reasons of procedural propriety. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the I.A. has applied the same settled position of law that when a matter is reserved for orders, there is no scope for entertaining application from parties to re-hear the matter. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. 1964 5 SCR 946 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. in AIR 2001 Raj 71 to hold that no application could be moved after the final arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Hence, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had committed no error in not entertaining the I.A. particularly so when the I.A. contained facts which were already in existence at the time of filing of reply and at the time of making pleadings in the main company petition. Neither do we find any cogent grounds having been cited to explain what had impeded the Appellant from flagging these issues during the hearing of the main company petition. It also does not stand to any logical reasoning as to why the issues raised in the I.A. could not have been raised in the main company petition. Raising such technical issues and that too after detailed hearing in the main petition was concluded clearly shows that the Appellant was merely trying to raise feeble grounds in the I.A. to somehow delay and derail the admission of CIRP. Hence in our considered opinion, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly rejected the I.A. Page 45 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 253/2023."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative ... vs Ravi Sethia on 21 August, 2025

"13. It is a well settled proposition of law that the two stages of reserving of judgment and pronouncement of judgment are in a continuum with no hiatus or gap as such in the two stages. That being the well accepted and time-tested practice in court proceedings, subsequent pleadings filed by way of an Page 44 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 I.A. after the judgement is reserved is normally not entertained for reasons of procedural propriety. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the I.A. has applied the same settled position of law that when a matter is reserved for orders, there is no scope for entertaining application from parties to re-hear the matter. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. 1964 5 SCR 946 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. in AIR 2001 Raj 71 to hold that no application could be moved after the final arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Hence, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had committed no error in not entertaining the I.A. particularly so when the I.A. contained facts which were already in existence at the time of filing of reply and at the time of making pleadings in the main company petition. Neither do we find any cogent grounds having been cited to explain what had impeded the Appellant from flagging these issues during the hearing of the main company petition. It also does not stand to any logical reasoning as to why the issues raised in the I.A. could not have been raised in the main company petition. Raising such technical issues and that too after detailed hearing in the main petition was concluded clearly shows that the Appellant was merely trying to raise feeble grounds in the I.A. to somehow delay and derail the admission of CIRP. Hence in our considered opinion, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly rejected the I.A. Page 45 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 253/2023."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative ... vs Ravi Sethia on 21 August, 2025

"13. It is a well settled proposition of law that the two stages of reserving of judgment and pronouncement of judgment are in a continuum with no hiatus or gap as such in the two stages. That being the well accepted and time-tested practice in court proceedings, subsequent pleadings filed by way of an Page 44 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 I.A. after the judgement is reserved is normally not entertained for reasons of procedural propriety. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the I.A. has applied the same settled position of law that when a matter is reserved for orders, there is no scope for entertaining application from parties to re-hear the matter. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. 1964 5 SCR 946 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. in AIR 2001 Raj 71 to hold that no application could be moved after the final arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Hence, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had committed no error in not entertaining the I.A. particularly so when the I.A. contained facts which were already in existence at the time of filing of reply and at the time of making pleadings in the main company petition. Neither do we find any cogent grounds having been cited to explain what had impeded the Appellant from flagging these issues during the hearing of the main company petition. It also does not stand to any logical reasoning as to why the issues raised in the I.A. could not have been raised in the main company petition. Raising such technical issues and that too after detailed hearing in the main petition was concluded clearly shows that the Appellant was merely trying to raise feeble grounds in the I.A. to somehow delay and derail the admission of CIRP. Hence in our considered opinion, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly rejected the I.A. Page 45 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 253/2023."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Nirmal Ujjwal Credit Co-Operative ... vs Ravi Sethia on 21 August, 2025

"13. It is a well settled proposition of law that the two stages of reserving of judgment and pronouncement of judgment are in a continuum with no hiatus or gap as such in the two stages. That being the well accepted and time-tested practice in court proceedings, subsequent pleadings filed by way of an Page 44 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 I.A. after the judgement is reserved is normally not entertained for reasons of procedural propriety. The Adjudicating Authority while dismissing the I.A. has applied the same settled position of law that when a matter is reserved for orders, there is no scope for entertaining application from parties to re-hear the matter. The Adjudicating Authority has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. 1964 5 SCR 946 and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Pukhraj Jain & Ors. in AIR 2001 Raj 71 to hold that no application could be moved after the final arguments were heard and the case was closed for judgment. Hence, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had committed no error in not entertaining the I.A. particularly so when the I.A. contained facts which were already in existence at the time of filing of reply and at the time of making pleadings in the main company petition. Neither do we find any cogent grounds having been cited to explain what had impeded the Appellant from flagging these issues during the hearing of the main company petition. It also does not stand to any logical reasoning as to why the issues raised in the I.A. could not have been raised in the main company petition. Raising such technical issues and that too after detailed hearing in the main petition was concluded clearly shows that the Appellant was merely trying to raise feeble grounds in the I.A. to somehow delay and derail the admission of CIRP. Hence in our considered opinion, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly rejected the I.A. Page 45 of 48 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 790 OF 2025 253/2023."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next