Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.85 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Karuveeppil Veera Vunni'S Younger ... vs Kottakkat Kuttu on 18 August, 1932
T.Shadrak, reported in 1978 TLNJ 332, a learned single Judge of this Court
held that in so far as delay in re-presentation is concerned notice to the
respondent is not necessary. After referring to the decisions in Karuveeppil
Veera Vunni's Younger Brother Ahammad Kutty & Ors. v. Kottakkat Kuttu (AIR
1933 MAD 315), wherein, it was held that any time that is allowed in re-
presentation is only by way of concession and therefore with reference to
such concession granted by the Court, the respondent who had not even
received notice in the main case, which would be issued only after the main
case is admitted has no locus standi to object to the granting of the said
concession.
M. Subramania Mudaliar vs K. Janardhanam And Anr. on 13 October, 1998
iii) In Subramania Mudaliar v. Janardhanam, reported in 1994 (1) MLJ
152, the delay in re-presentation was six years. On the sufficiency of
reasons a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at paras 8 and 9 held as
follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
ii) Though the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee
v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649, has been
rendered with reference to an application filed for condoning the delay,
principles culled out by the Hon'ble Apex Court are extracted hereunder:-
Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1