Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 219 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd on 5 February, 1993

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Umaji S/O Nagoji Bhivankar on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:28 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Lahuji S/O Manohar Hanskar on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:23 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Suman W/O Shamrao Chapale on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:06 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Budhaji S/O Yerraji Madavi on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:11 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Harishchandra R. Borkute on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:15 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Balvir Singh Sekhon vs M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd on 2 February, 2021

In Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185, it was held that it is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex- parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and or misdemeanor of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is not such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Khushabrao Diwase (Dead) Thr. Lrs. ... on 22 January, 2020

In KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:19 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 11/17 the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that the Advocate is the agent of the party and that there is no absolute rule that a party can disown its Advocate at any time and seek relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Syed Mujibur Rahman vs Abdul Azeez on 20 October, 2000

That authority is now of little help to the respondent herein in view of subsequent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Salil Dutta (1993 AIR SCW 1178) supra, where its aforequoted observations are squarely attracted to the facts of the case in hand. The Supreme Court in Salil Dutta makes it clear that negligence of an advocate of a party cannot always be a good cause for his non-appearance in a suit proceeding, except when exceptional and acceptable circumstances peculiar to a particular case where pointed out fully justifying non-appearance of the party on a date of hearing for such reason. It, therefore, follows that as a rule, any negligence of the counsel of a party cannot be a good ground to condone the default of non-appearance of the party on a hearing date in a suit proceeding or for that matter to condone the delay caused by a party in taking any legal action. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Salil Dutta, the alleged negligence of his said counsel urged by the plaintiff seeking condonation of the said delay of about 18 months, as prayed in I.A. No. 1, and for setting aside of trial Court's order dated 14-6-1994 dismissing the suit is not a good cause tenable in law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - M Anwar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next