Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai And 2 ... on 7 January, 2022

Mohd Iqbal vs Syed Shah Jaffer Hussain on 22 June, 2023

18. In addition to the above grounds, the respondents further contented that the failure of petitioner in filing the petition against the Judgment and Decree in OS.No.741 of 2009 clearly indicates the malafide intention of petitioner and it is only to dodge the proceedings, more particularly, when the Execution Court already sold the property. It is the specific contention of the respondents that after execution proceedings were successfully concluded in their favour, they have alienated the property to a third-party and petitioner having come to know about the said alienation, filed the present appeal with a malafide intention to extract money from the parties. While relying on Para numbers 7 of 37 of Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai'4 (supra), the learned counsel for the respondents has 3 (2013) 12 SC Cases 649 4 2022 (1) ALT 533 11 SSRN,J I.A.No.1 of 2023 in/and C.C.C.A.No.24 of 2023 submitted that while exercising the discretion to condone the delay, the Court is required to see whether the delay is satisfactorily explained.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C Yashoda vs U Sudheera on 1 July, 2022

13. Apart from the above stated legal position, it is to be noted that in the present case, the learned appellate Court also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying legal principles to the facts of the present case, has taken a view that the delay in filing the application to set aside 6 NJS,J CRP No.1394 of 2021 the abatement of appeal deserves to be allowed. This Court see no reason to take a different view nor the Order under Revision suffers from any irregularity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Kshitij Infraventures's case referred to above was in respect of a case wherein an application filed to condone the delay of 1691 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was the subject matter. The Hon'ble Division Bench, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, was not inclined to condone the delay. The said decision in the considered opinion of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it relates to application to condone the delay in setting aside the abatement of appeal, but not delay in filing the appeal, where the parameters for condonation are most stringent. The other decision in Jampala Poornanda Venkateswara Prasad's case referred to above is also not of much aid, as the learned Judge in the attending facts and circumstances of the case came to a conclusion that the petitioner therein was negligent, designedly protracting the proceedings and therefore, disentitled to claim discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document
1