Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.47 seconds)

Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri And Ors vs M.S Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 16 April, 2024

The next significant aspect is that the learned trial Court further passed order of striking off the defence of the petitioner on account of non-compliance of the impugned order. For this purpose, Sub-rule (2) of Order XV-A is required to be considered. It is conspicuous that before passing order for striking off the defence, the Court shall serve notice on the defendant or his Advocate to show cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and the Court shall consider any such cause shown in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from the order striking off the defence. Thus, the legislature has offered second opportunity to the defendant before striking off the defence and has afforded right of hearing. Such a person can show cause as to why the order could not be complied with and in that case, after application of judicial mind, the Court has discretion to relieve such a person from such an order of striking off the defence. Needless to say, the striking off the defence is not automatic only because of non depositing of the amount as directed by the Court. The defence cannot be so lightly struck off as has been done in the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S V Marne - Full Document

Selvel Publicity Consultants Pvt. ... vs Mr. Altaf-Ul-Rahim on 15 January, 2015

In that regard, reliance was placed on decision of learned Single Judge in Radheshyam v. Tuljaprasad & ors., AIR 2007 Bombay 83. He then submitted that ::: Downloaded on - 21/01/2015 23:45:11 ::: wp4020.14.odt 4/10 the defendant had been preventing the plaintiff from enjoying fruits of the interim order. The defendant was not permitting the plaintiff to operate the hoardings in breach of the interim order. Hence, the defendant could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.
1