Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Gmg Engineering Industries & Ors vs M/S Isaa Green Power Solution & Ors on 15 May, 2015

The Chief Conservator Of Forest Circle ... vs Lakhan Choudhary on 25 April, 2017

10. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) and GMG Engineering Industries and others Vs. ISSA Green Power Solution and others (supra), this court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the petitioners be afforded one opportunity to defend their case and the respondents be compensated by payment of the cost.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Arun Kumar vs U Venkateswarlu on 12 November, 2018

Order XXI Rule 26 C.P.C deals with powers of the Executing Court to grant stay of all further proceedings upon showing sufficient cause, subject to clauses 2 & 3 of the same provision. Even according to the allegations made in the petition, affidavit filed along with petition, an allegation is made that, he filed a petition for condoning delay in filing a petition to set-aside the exparte decree along with a petition to set-aside the exparte decree before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. A copy of the petition is placed before this Court during hearing and the petitioner filed I.A.No.929 of 2014 to condone delay of 126 days in filing the written statement. But, it was not known whether the petitioner filed I.A.No.929 of 2014 before filing I.A.No.1084 of 2017 i.e. to set-aside the exparte decree. But, the present petition was filed certainly after filing petitions in I.A.No.929 of 2014 and I.A.No.1084 of 2017. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner filed petitions to set-aside exparte order along with the petition to condone delay of 126 days is to be accepted. However, Order XXI Rule 26 C.P.C has no application to the present facts of the case, since these petitions were not filed in the Executing Court to file petition under Section 151 C.P.C in original Court to grant stay of all further proceedings. but, imposition of such condition to grant stay of execution proceedings is in accordance with law, since this Court can impose such MSM,J CRP.No.1688 of 2018 4 condition. But, if it is an order while setting aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C, the principle laid down in GMG Engineering Industries and others v. ISSA Green Power Solution and others (referred supra), will come in the way and such order cannot be sustained, since the order is under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. But, when it is an order under Order XXI C.P.C, it cannot be set-aside, as the Trial Court concluded that it is just and necessary to impose such condition. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, subject to order in I.A.No.929 of 2014 and I.A.No.1084 of 2017. However, this order will not come in the way of disposing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C and Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baobbu Singh vs Smt. Gangaswati on 16 February, 2017

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) and GMG Engineering Industries and others Vs. ISSA Green Power Solution and others (supra), I find that the appellants have made out sufficient cause to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Delay in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte decree is condoned and the order dated 8/12/1999 dismissing the suit and the impugned order dated 21/12/1999 are set aside. Appellants are further directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 3000/- which is to be paid to the defendants. The trial Court will make all endeavour to conclude the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy as per rules.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

New House No. B­364 vs Shakuntla Devi on 19 December, 2019

5. To support his arguments towards condonation of delay, Ld. Counsel for appellant placed reliance upon (2010) 169 DLT 350 : (2010) 159 PLR 1 titled as Sushila Vs. Mahinder Sharma & Ors. , AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353 titled as Collector, Land Acquisition & Anr. Vs. Katiji & Ors. , AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1354, V (2015) SLT 487 titled as GMG Engineering Industries & Ors. Vs. ISSA Green Power Solution & Ors. , Civil Appeal no. 318 of 2015 titled as Chandan Singh Vs. Nationa Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. , JT 1995 (8) SC 494 titled as Market Committee, Hodal Vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. and Civil Appeal no. 8577 of 2014 titled as Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Renu Tomar D/O N.S Gaur vs Mahendra Pratap Tomar on 7 September, 2021

In this regard, we can usefully refer several judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court like GMG Engg. Industries v. Issa Green Power Solution (2015) 15 SCC 659, Srei International Finance Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 95 , Katari 7 FA-1733-2019 & FA-1766-2019 Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao (2009) 11 SCC 183, Daria Lino D'sa Dias v. Anthony D'sa (2009) 17 SCC 129 , Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More (2019) 6 SCC 387 and M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam 2001 AIR SCW 2810.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - V Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next