Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.82 seconds)
Indian Overseas Bank vs Jason Deckor P Ltd on 5 September, 2018 cites

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

In other words, not permitting the defendant to file written statement, if submitted beyond the period of 120 days from the date of submission of the summons cannot be said to be unreasonable. The object and purpose to provide such a time limit is required to be considered while considering the object and purpose of enactment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is enacted for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes and which provides for special mechanism for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid decisions taking the view that time limit provided under the Code of Civil Procedure to file written statement within a particular time limit is directory and not mandatory shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly with respect to the aforesaid provisions viz., Order V Rule 1; Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC which shall be applicable to the commercial disputes only. Even the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku [Supra] that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural Page 15 of 33 C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT enactment ought not to have been construed in a manner which shall leave the Court helpless to meeting extraordinary situations in the ends of justice, also shall not be applicable while construing and/or considering the time limit prescribed under the amended provisions, more particularly Order V Rule 1; Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC more particularly while considering the object and purpose for which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted and the aforesaid provisions are made applicable only to the commercial disputes to which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall be applicable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002

Counsel, however, candidly pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. JJ Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in 2003 [1] GLH 608 in this context has taken somewhat different view, opining that such proviso Page 6 of 33 C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT cannot be interpreted in such a manner that speedy and expeditious remedy to the consumer is frustrated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 565 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 December, 2015

He also drew our attention to a decision in the latter judgment of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in 2015 [16] SCC 20 in which, it was held that the district forum under the Consumer Protection Act can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 299 - A R Dave - Full Document

Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 21 August, 2017

C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT In case of Sejal Glass Limited [Supra]; as noted, the Supreme Court allowed appeal of the plaintiff, setting aside the order passed by the Courts below, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and while doing so, additional time was granted to the defendant to file written statement. The Court, however, stated that the question of law in so far as Commercial Courts Act is concerned, had not been touched and was consequently kept open. This act of granting the defendants time of eight weeks for filing the written statement, can thus be seen as the Court's exercising power under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 103 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015

13.2 Now so far as submission/request on behalf of the petitioner to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution and to permit the petitioner herein-original defendant to place on record the written statement to do substantial justice is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there is no such prayer in the petition. The present petition is as such filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Ahmedabad passed below Application Exh. 14 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 328 of 2016 by which the learned Judge has rejected the said application preferred by the petitioner-original defendant and has refused to take on record the written statement which as such was submitted/ presented beyond the period of 120 days of the Page 11 of 33 C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT service of summons There is no such prayer and/or averments made in the petition requesting to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution and to permit the defendant to place on record the written statement Even in the cause title also the petition is described as the one preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [Supra] and in the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Supra], the order passed by a Civil Court is only amendable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution only which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 616 - A K Goel - Full Document

Kalpesh R Jain And 2 Ors vs Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2018

In case of Kalpesh R. Jain [Supra], the Bombay High Court was dealing with different situation. It was a case in which an appeal was filed before the Commercial Appellate Court set up under the Act of 2015. Such appeal was filed Page 29 of 33 C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The Court held that applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not ruled out and delay can be condoned on sufficient ground being made out.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - B Dangre - Full Document

Zolba vs Keshao And Ors on 1 April, 2008

This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in case of Zolba vs. Keshao & Ors., reported in [2008] 11 SCC 769 Page 24 of 33 C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT and in case of R.N Jadi & Brothers & Ors. vs. Subhash Chandra, [2007] 6 SCC 420, in which however, it was emphasized that filing the written statement within time envisaged would be a rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for satisfactory reasons only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 86 - Full Document
1   2 Next