Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sandeep Thapar vs Sme Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 12 November, 2010

Smt. C. Bhagya vs M/S. Poornaprajna House Building on 11 January, 2018

24. Admittedly, in the present case, the trial Court by the impugned order has not assigned any detailed reason to dismiss the application except holding that there is a delay of 3½ years and the application was filed only to protract the proceedings. The trial Court has not considered the reasons assigned by the defendants in the application for permission. Therefore, in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble 25 Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited reported in AIR 2014 SCW 431, considering the very provision under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure as stated supra, the 1st point raised in these writ petitions has to be answered in the negative holding that the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - B Veerappa - Full Document

M/S Focus Paper Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Biotropic Pharma Pvt. Ltd on 21 May, 2014

In Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Pvt. Ltd., it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "A prayer for CS No. 636/13 M/s Focus Paper Pvt. Ltd. VS. M/s Biotropic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 15 extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for 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 be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit of documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case."
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Justice. Micheal F.Saldanha (Retd.) vs Sri. M.P. Noronha (Melwyn Prakash ... on 23 August, 2016

11. Placing reliance on paragraph No.7 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar v. SME Technologies Private Limited reported in (2014) 2 SCC 302, he submitted that Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature and 11 therefore the power of the Court to extend time to file written statement beyond the prescribed period provided therein is not completely taken away.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - P S Kumar - Full Document

Natwarlal Mehta vs Goswamini Rukmini Bahuji Maharaj on 18 June, 2018

The last judgment cited by the opposite party was reported at (2014) 2 SCC 302 (Sandeep Thapar v SME Technologies Pvt Ltd). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted belated filing of written statement beyond the prescribed period on payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. It was only held that although Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was directory, such provision could be invoked for accepting a belated written statement in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure that injustice was not done.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajkumar Tiwari vs Pankaj Singh on 20 December, 2022

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the opinion that since the provisions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. are directory and not mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Thapar (supra) and Zolba (supra), in the interest of justice and taking clue from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Desh Raj (supra), time can be granted to the petitioner/defendant to file the written statement which is already on record subject to payment of some reasonable cost.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next