Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Hans Raj vs Shri Lakhi Ram on 17 September, 2004

Motilal Banarasidass Publishers ... vs Standard Chartered Bank on 8 December, 2006

In the case of Hans Raj (supra) also, the ex parte decree was set aside under Order xxxvII Rule 4, CPC on the ground that non-service of summons under the provisions of Order xxxvII would by itself be a special circumstance within the meaning of Rule 4 of Order xxxvII, entitling the defendant to ask for setting aside the decree. A learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Goyal Mg Gases Ltd. vs Premium International Finance Ltd. And ... on 31 July, 2006

16. A suit under Order 37 of the CPC is instituted by presenting a plaint which has to satisfy the requirements of Order 37 Rule 2 thereof. Thereafter, Order 37 Rule 3 mandates that the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under Rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto. The consequence of failure to serve summons as required by law fell for consideration before this Court in entitled Hans Raj v. Lakhi Ram. In this pronouncement, the court was considering an application by the defendant for setting aside of an ex parte decree inter alia on the ground of non-service of the summons as required by order 37 of the CPC. In this behalf, the court held thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 28 - G Mittal - Full Document

Rca No. 7/ vs Sh. Vinod Kumar on 30 April, 2011

In this regard he relied upon "Goyal MG Gases Ltd. V. Premium International Finance Ltd. & Ors. 138 (2007) Delhi Law Times 259, Vijaya Home Loans Ltd. V. M/s Crown Traders Ltd. & Another 2001 VII AD (Delhi) 475, Pleasant Securities & Finance Ltd. V. NRI Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 768, Motilal RCA No. 7/10 Page no. 5 of 15 Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd. V. Standard Chartered Bank, Manu/DE/0129/2007, Hans Raj V. Lakhi Ram AIR 2005 Delhi 87, Punjab and Sind Bank V. Ramji Das Khanna & Anr. AIR 1984 Delhi 175".
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Hewelett Computer Paper Industries vs M/S Skypark Services Specialists on 22 March, 2007

9. As already discussed, the plaintiff has not supplied the copies of the documents relied upon by them mere because the originals are with the defendant, as pleaded in the reply to the leave to defend application/affidavit. This admission of non supply of the documents further goes against the plaintiff in term of observations of their Lordship in the case of Hans Raj Vs. Lakhi Ram reported in 114 (2004) DLT 264 wherein their Lordship were of the view that "where only copy of the summons without affixing the copy of plaint and annexures thereto were affixed by the process server, the service of 11 summons is insufficient and it is sufficient circumstance to set aside a decree passed under Order 37 CPC". Here, the plaintiff despite objection is adamant not to supply the documents to the defendant which entitled him to leave to defend the suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

District Judge­3 East District vs Smt. Geeta Gupta on 31 August, 2016

14.  I am also supported by  114 (2004) DLT 264 Hans Raj v. Lakhi  Ram, wherein the court observed that:­ "In a suit brought under Order 37, CPC, it is all the more   important for the plaintiff to show that the fact that the suit   was   filed   under   summary   procedure   was   specifically   brought   to   the   notice   of   the   defendant   because   in   these   cases he has to put an appearance within a period of ten   days.   There is nothing on record to show that either the   summons were tendered to the wife of the petitioner or she   was told that defendant has to appear before Court within a   period of ten days.  A perusal of the order sheets reveal that   on several dates either the "Process fee was not filed by the   plaintiff   or   annexures   were   not   furnished   as   a   result   of   which summons could not be issued.  As regards substituted   service it is clear from the perusal of copy of the newspaper   "Statesman" dated 21.10.1995 that copy of the annexures   namely the alleged loan agreement dated 24.03.1994 were   not   published  in the newspaper.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manjari vs Ranjit Singh on 29 November, 2006

2. The plaintiff respondent claimed a decree for a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. in a suit under Order 37 of the C.P.C. filed against the defendant-appellant. The defendant, it appears, was served by publication of a notice in "Statesman" in its issue dated 22.12.2005. Since the defendant did not enter appearance within the stipulated period of 10 days as required under Order 37 Rule 2(3) of the C.P.C, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit in terms of judgment and decree dated 15.2.2006 treating the averments made in the plaint to be admitted. The defendant, thereafter, made an application under Rule 4 of Order 37 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the aforementioned judgment and decree on the ground that service of summons upon him was not in accordance with law. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Hans Raj v. Lakhi Ram , it was contended by the defendant before the Trial Court that service by publication was not complete in a suit under Order 37 unless a copy of the plaint was also published along with the summons. That contention found favor with the Trial Court, who recorded a clear finding to the effect that service of summons upon the defendant-appellant was not in accordance with law. Having said so, the Trial Court proceeded to hold that the decree passed by it could not be set aside as the defendant-appellant had not raised any friable issue upon which he could claim the leave to defend the suit. The defendants' application under Order 37 Rule 4 was on that finding dismissed by the Court below by its order dated 18.7.2006. The appellant has, as noticed earlier, appealed to this Court against the aforementioned two judgments and orders.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - T S Thakur - Full Document

I.D. Sharma vs Kapil Kohli on 28 August, 2012

8. The reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court on (i) Hans Raj Vs. Lakhi Ram, 114 (2004) DLT 264; (ii) Babu Lal Yadav vs. R.S.Yadav & Co. & Anr. 167 (2010) DLT 664; (iii) V.S. Saini and another Vs. D.C.M. Ltd., AIR 2004 DELHI 219 as also (iv) Vijaya Home Loans Ltd. Vs. M/s. Crown Traders Ltd. & Another, 2001 VII AD (DELHI) 475, is misplaced. All these cited cases are on different facts and circumstances and do not support the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - M L Mehta - Full Document

M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Kingel India Tour & Travels Ltd on 28 March, 2014

In support of this contention, counsel for applicant has placed before me the judgment of Hon'ble High of Delhi in the case 'Hans Raj Vs Lakhi Ram', AIR 2005 Delhi 87, wherein it was held that u/o 37 R 4 CPC it is provided that plaintiff shall serve the copy of the plaint and annexures to the defendant and where only the summons were published without publication of plaint and documents, the service was bad.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next