Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35B in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 35A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
In Salem
Advocate Bar Association Judgment (Supra), in paragraphs 36 & 37
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:30:33 :::
KJ 14/19 NMS381.14
the Court has held as under :-
You One Maharia û Jv Thr.You One Eng.& ... vs National Highways Authority Of India on 21 August, 2007
13 Mr.Ashwin Shankar further submitted that the order of
security for cost is not mandatory but discretionary. He relied upon
the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of 1Intertoll Ics
Cecons.O & M Co.Pvt. Ltd., Vs. National Highways Authority of India.
Vinod Seth vs Devinder Bajaj & Anr on 5 July, 2010
4. Defendant's share of Commissioner's Rs.1 lakh
fees for recording of evidence
TOTAL Rs.24 lakhs
23 (a) As regards items 1 & 2, in view of the Apex Court
Judgments in the matters of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra) and vinod
Seth (supra) I am inclined to follow the provisions of Rule 606 of
Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules. Since the rules provides only for
Rs.25,000/- towards Advocates' fees, the plaintiffs have to provide
security only in the sum of Rs.25,000/-.
Sachindra Nath Dutt vs Secy. Of State For India And Ors. on 26 July, 1929
12 Mr.Ashwin Shankar also submitted that the party who
decides to apply for security for cost must do it promptly. He
submitted that the suit was filed in 2008, security was furnished in
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2014 22:30:33 :::
KJ 9/19 NMS381.14
2008 and today after almost six years the defendant has taken out
this Motion for security for cost. He relied upon the judgment of the
High Court of Calcutta in the matter of 1Sachindra Nath Dutt Vs.
Secretary of State for India and Ors. in support of his submission.
1