Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies P.Ltd on 2 January, 2014

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Colonial Life Insurance Co (Trindad) ... on 24 May, 2019

Placing reliance on the decisions in Kailash vs. Nankhu [(2005) 4 SCC 480], Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 302] and Justice Micheal F. Saldanha (Retd) vs. Sri. M.P. Noronha [ILR 2016 Kar 4700] Mr. Jagtiani therefore concluded that this Court has the power to condone any delay in filing the written statement and that the delay in Defendant No.1 filing its written statement be condoned and its written statement be taken on record.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

Pramod Agrawal vs Lomesh Das Vaishnav on 11 November, 2022

315 : (2014) 2 SCC 302, Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies (P) Ltd. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in Annexure P/7 cannot be treated as exceptional or justifiable rea- sons. The finding of the Court below reproduced in para 10 above shows that trial Court has found that there is laxity on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5. No exceptional or special reasons are recorded by the Court below while granting opportunity to file written statements. This runs contrary to settled legal posi- tion. On the basis of reasons assigned, permission cannot be granted. The im- pugned order shows that Court has mechanically granted the permission much after 90 days.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pramod Agrawal vs Lomesh Das Vaishnav on 11 November, 2022

315 : (2014) 2 SCC 302, Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies (P) Ltd. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in Annexure P/7 cannot be treated as exceptional or justifiable rea- sons. The finding of the Court below reproduced in para 10 above shows that trial Court has found that there is laxity on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5. No exceptional or special reasons are recorded by the Court below while granting opportunity to file written statements. This runs contrary to settled legal posi- tion. On the basis of reasons assigned, permission cannot be granted. The im- pugned order shows that Court has mechanically granted the permission much after 90 days.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bismilla Bee vs Arjuman Aara on 11 July, 2014

Judgment of Kailash (supra) is again considered in 2014(2) SCC 302 ( Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies (P) Ltd.). In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in Annexure P/7 cannot be treated as exceptional or justifiable reasons. The finding of the court below reproduced in para 10 above shows that trial court has found that there is laxity on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5. No exceptional or special reasons are recorded by the court below while granting opportunity to file written statements. This runs contrary to settled legal position. On the basis of reasons assigned, permission cannot be granted. The impugned order shows that Court has mechanically granted the permission much after 90 days.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mr. Mir Akbar All Khan, vs Mrs. Sarwarunnisa Begum, on 29 August, 2024

315 : (2014) 2 SCC 302, Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies (P) Ltd. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in Annexure P/7 cannot be treated as exceptional or justifiable reasons. The finding of the Court below reproduced in para 10 above shows that trial Court has found that there is laxity on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5. No exceptional or special reasons are recorded by the Court below while granting opportunity to file written statements. This runs contrary to settled legal position. On the basis of reasons assigned, 6 SP, J CRP_1747_2024 permission cannot be granted. The impugned order shows that Court has mechanically granted the permission much after 90 days.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Baikunthi vs Horilal on 19 September, 2022

Vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores) the Apex Court opined that the extension of time can be granted by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is important to note that Apex Court opined that in no case the defendants be permitted to seek extension of time when there is laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. In the present case there is laxity or gross negligence on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5 or his counsel. Judgment of Kailash (supra) is again considered in 2014(2) SCC 302 ( Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies (P) Ltd.). In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned in Annexure P/7 cannot be treated as exceptional or justifiable reasons. The finding of the court below reproduced in para 10 above shows that trial court has found that there is laxity on the part of defendants No. 1 to 5. No exceptional or special reasons are recorded by the court below while granting opportunity to file written statements. This runs contrary to settled legal position. On the basis of reasons assigned, permission cannot be granted. The impugned order shows that Court has mechanically granted the permission much after 90 days.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Pandey & Ors vs Kaushalya Devi & Ors on 8 May, 2014

In the case of Sandeep Thapar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'a prayer for extension of time shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for the asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also to be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied.' Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed on payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M Sahoo - Full Document
1   2 3 Next