Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Bhakti Hari Nayak And Ors. vs Vidyawati Gupta, S.C. Agarwala (Huf) ... on 9 June, 2004

M/S Mosenthals Wool & Mohair S.A.[Pty.] ... vs M/S Inso-Drive Systems on 1 February, 2013

[13]. The principal issue that arises for consideration and which emanates from the preliminary objection taken by the respondent is whether the winding-up petition filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation? [14]. According to the respondent Articles 14 and 15 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are relevant to determine whether or not the winding up petition has been filed within limitation as it could be instituted within the period of three years prescribed for filing of civil-suit for the recovery of price of goods, sold and delivered with or without fixed period of credit, under both the Articles. In the instant case, the goods were delivered on 10.09.1996 and the three years' period expired on 09.09.1999. As regard to the letters dated 11.08.1998 and 31.08.1998 [Annexures P-7 and P-8], it was maintained that even if these letters were taken as the acknowledgment of debt, yet the limitation period of three years expired on 30.08.2001, whereas the winding-up petition was filed on 28.02.2002 and that too in a defective format which was finally removed on 09.05.2002 when the petition was re-filed. Reliance is placed on Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors. Vs. Vidyawati Gupta, S.C.Agarwala [HUF] & Ors., AIR 2005 Calcutta, 145.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

V.P.Abdul Kareem vs Mehroof Manalody

13. In the decision reported in Vidyawati Gupta v.Bhakti Hari Nayak (AIR 2006 SC 1194), it has been held that the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 Code of Civil Procedure would be attracted to the proceedings of the High Court on the original side. However non compliance thereof would not render the suit non est. It has been further explained the purpose of introducing section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15(4) by Amendment Act, 2002 that they were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays in the disposal of civil matters but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non-compliance hereof would not automatically render the plaint non est. The Supreme Court by this judgment reversed the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta reported in Bhakti Hari Nayak v. Vidyawati Gupta (AIR 2005 Calcutta 145) wherein it has been observed that non compliance of Order 6 Rule 15 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2002 will render the plaint non est in the eye of law.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

M/S Hmm Infra Ltd vs M/S Chaudhary Engineering & ... on 14 May, 2018

Learned counsel further relied upon Bhakti Hari Nayak and others Vs. Vidyawati Gupta and others, AIR 2005 Calcutta 145 and contended that a plaint in terms of Order 4 Rule 1(3) CPC shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complied with the requirement specified in Sub Rules (1) and (2). Sub Rule (2) requires compliance with Order 4 and Order 6 which contain the requirement of supporting the plaint by an affidavit. The cogent reading of these provisions makes it clear that the plaint which has been filed without compliance with the requirement of Order 6 shall not be deemed to be duly instituted 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 04:55:20 ::: CR No.5864 of 2016 7 a suit. The consideration of deeming clause would create a legal fiction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

N Sundar vs N Natesha Murthy on 4 August, 2023

6. The counsel in support of his argument relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2005 CALCUTTA 145 in the case of BHAKTI HARI NAYAK AND OTHER vs VIDYAWATI GUPTA AND OTHERS wherein it is held that amendment should not be conflict with the earlier pleading and also contended that Order VI contains requirement of supporting plaint by an affidavit and plaint which has been filed without compliance with requirement of the Order VI shall not be deemed to be duly instituted in view of deeming clause in Order In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following Rule 1(3), moment error is rectified, plaint shall be deemed to be properly instituted and rectification cannot relate back to period when, in view of deeming clause, there was no due institution of plaint. The counsel brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 6, 7, 8 wherein discussed with regard to that sub-section (2) has been added to Section 26 of the Code and also discussed about Order IV in paragraph 8 and also brought to notice of 10 this Court paragraph 22 wherein discussed with regard to the legislative intent.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Asis Kumar Banerjee & Others vs Sakti Ranjan Basu on 2 July, 2010

Mr. Basu submitted that the principle decided by this court in the aforesaid case of Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors. (Supra) is very much applicable to the facts of the present case since the petitioners inspite of having specific knowledge about the order passed earlier by the learned Single Judge on April 9, 1991 appeared at the written test and thus, the said petitioners relinquished their right by conduct which amounts to waiver of the right. It has also been submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnors that the statutory Recruitment Rules of 1991 was undisputedly in force at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1999 which specifically provided for preparation of panel amongst the sponsored candidates on the basis of their qualification and performance in the written test/interview. In the aforesaid 5 Recruitment Rules it has also been made clear that the appointments are to be made by the Council only from the panel approved by the Director of School Education and not otherwise. The alleged contemnor being the Chairman of the council in the year 1999 was very much aware of the aforesaid provision of law and considering the aforesaid provision of the Recruitment Rules, 1991 called upon the petitioners to appear at the written test for the purpose of preparation of the next panel and the petitioners herein duly appeared at the written test without any reservation.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document
1