Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)
Manu Markande & Anr vs The State & Ors on 19 March, 2025 cites

Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (Supra), the Court was directly concerned with the power of the Court under Section 148 CPC and as the extracted portion appears to indicate, unless the period of limitation is prescribed by the legislature itself, such as in the case of statutory enactment like the Limitation Act, the Court has been held to possess power's under Section 148, to extend the period for the purpose of one or the other obligation spelt-out by it in the course of proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

T.N. Rajasekar vs N. Kasiviswanathan & Ors on 28 July, 2005

19. While placing reliance on a decision in the case of T. N. Rajshekhar, he submits that the same does not relate at all to the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 or to the provisions of Section 148 of the CPC. He, therefore, submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid aspect, even the decision in the case of South Asia Human Rights Doc. Trust does not consider the correct position of law laid down in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare, and without discussing or taking into consideration the position of law, the Court has distinguished the said decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

50. Once an amendment has been allowed on merits, but the prescribed time for incorporating the amendment has lapsed, it would be within the inherent powers of the Court under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC to grant an extension. Such discretion, however, must be exercised judiciously and only when the conduct of the party seeking an extension does not reflect contumaciousness, gross negligence, or any ulterior motive. The Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku16 held that the object of procedural laws is to facilitate the administration of justice and not to frustrate it, particularly when no significant prejudice is caused to the opposing party. Thus, extensions may be granted in furtherance of substantial justice. No doubt, the Court must examine the reasons for delay and must curb any attempt to abuse the judicial process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1