Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 283 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Rani Kusum vs Smt. Kanchan Devi And Ors on 16 August, 2005

Satish Chandra vs Additional District Judge And Ors. on 27 March, 2006

13. The said judgments of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (supra) and Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. (supra) have been further followed in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (supra) and further another circumstance considered in the same case was that the court has extended the time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement and the date fixed by the court happened to be a holiday, therefore, the written statement was filed on the next day, then the court has considered the aspect of the matter that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. The relevant para Nos. 18 and 20 are as follows:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P S Asopa - Full Document

M/S. Piramal Diagnostics Services ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 March, 2023

8. In the event Court deems it fit the appellant may be permitted to prefer a separate application seeking leave to prefer appeal to be heard along with appeal preferred by the appellant. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the order may be modified/clarified by directing that appellant seeks permission to convert Criminal Revision Application into Application for Leave to file Appeal against order of acquittal and Appeal as per Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C, or the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2023 22:05:04 ::: 5 of 13 1.Apeal.817.2022.doc applicant may be permitted to prefer separate application seeking leave to file appeal against order of acquittal. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the course of justice. Mr.Apte has relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manikrao Vs. Vasantrao Vishwasrao Charjan and others 1; Smt.Rani Kusum Vs. Smt.Kanchan Devi and others 2; The State of Punjab and another Vs. Shamlal Murari and another3.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P D Naik - Full Document

Vinay Bhushan Chandhok vs Vivek Bhushan Chandhok And Anr. on 17 October, 2006

21. Thus, in my view, good grounds justifying the delay in filing the written statement must be said to have been made out by the defendants. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku (supra) and reiterated in the cases of Rani Kusum (supra), Salem Advocate Bar Association II (supra) and Sangram Singh's (supra), the defendants are held entitled to condensation of delay subject, however, to the payment of compensatory costs to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - R Khetrapal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next