Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Anju And Another vs Rampal & Another on 8 September, 2025 cites

Sam Higginbottom Of Agriculture ... vs M/S Acurite Contractors And Engineers on 11 July, 2016

15. Mr. Aggarwal submits that failure of the defendant to comply with the condition precedent automatically results in dismissal of leave to defend and consequently, the plaintiffs become entitled to a summary judgment forthwith under Order XXXVII Rule 3(6)(b) of CPC. According to him, the defendant No.1, having failed to furnish security within the stipulated time, lost the right to defend. Reliance is placed on the decisions of various Courts in Buta Singh Shankar Singh v. State2, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Science v. Acurite Contractors and Engineers3.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - M Misra - Full Document

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

In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India 6, the Supreme Court held that the 30-day cap introduced in Section 148 of CPC does not curtail the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC to extend time where justice so demands. The Court clarified that the rigid application of Section 148 of CPC would lead to absurd results and that procedural law 5 2025: DHC : 7172 6 2005 6 SCC 344 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 10 of 22 KUMAR KAURAV cannot be construed to promote injustice. It emphasized that even peremptory procedural orders are not absolute and Courts retain discretion to extend time in exceptional circumstances, such as events beyond a party's control. Accordingly, Section 148 of CPC must be read harmoniously with Section 151 of CPC to permit extensions beyond 30 days, provided sufficient cause is shown, so as to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Paragraphs Nos. 41 to 43 of the decision reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Mahanth Ram Das vs Ganga Das on 7 February, 1961

In Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das [(1961) 3 SCR 763 : AIR 1961 SC 882] this Court considered a case where an order was passed by the Court that if the court fee was not paid by a particular day, the suit shall stand dismissed. It was a self-operating order leading to dismissal of the suit. The party's application filed under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code for extension of time was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, it was observed: (SCR pp. 767-68) "How undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in between, it is not necessary to decide in this appeal. These orders turn out often enough to be inexpedient. Such procedural orders, though Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 11 of 22 KUMAR KAURAV peremptory (conditional decrees apart) are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. They do not, however, completely estop a court from taking note of events and circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For example, it cannot be said that, if the appellant had started with the full money ordered to be paid and came well in time but was set upon and robbed by thieves on the day previous, he could not ask for extension of time, or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 181 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Manu Markande And Anr vs State & Ors on 1 November, 2018

27. Relying on the aforesaid decision, this Court in Manu Markande & Anr. v. State & Ors7, clarified that while Section 148 of CPC places an ostensible cap of 30 days on extension of time, Courts are not precluded from granting extensions beyond this limit, particularly in relation to taking amended pleadings on record. In context of Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, the Court observed that Section 148 of CPC, being a residuary provision, permits enlargement of time where no specific provision exists, but is ordinarily restricted to 30 days. Conversely, Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, which specifically governs the filing of amended pleadings, does not prescribe an absolute upper limit, thereby enabling Courts to extend time beyond the initial 14 days if sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Chawla - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors on 12 January, 2011

33. Moreover, it is also to bear in mind that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice, not its mistress. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra 8 held that Section 151 of CPC has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the Court Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:10.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 10:54:02 CS(OS) 1159/2014 Page 15 of 22 KUMAR KAURAV for doing justice, unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. This principle has stood the test of time in matters of procedure and has been developed as a thumb rule. The principle is well established that when CPC is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid to act ex debito justitiae for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

M/S Vidya Projects Private Limited vs Essel Infraprojects Limited & Ors on 18 October, 2023

22. It is undeniable that the legislative framework under Order XXXVII of CPC is predicated upon expedition and strict adherence to timelines, so as to advance the object of speedy disposal of commercial causes. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court in Vidya Projects Private Limited V. Essel Infra Projects Limited & Ors5.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Y Khanna - Full Document
1