Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.29 seconds)M/S Gmg Engineering Industries & Ors vs M/S Isaa Green Power Solution & Ors on 15 May, 2015
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of
N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) and GMG
Engineering Industries and others Vs. ISSA Green
Power Solution and others (supra), I find that the
appellants have made out sufficient cause to allow the appeal.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal
is allowed. Delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-
parte decree is condoned and the order dated 8/12/1999
dismissing the suit and the impugned order dated 21/12/1999
are set aside. Appellants are further directed to deposit the
cost of Rs. 3000/- which is to be paid to the defendants. The
trial Court will make all endeavour to conclude the trial of the
suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months
from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order.
Certified copy as per rules.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of
N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra) and GMG
Engineering Industries and others Vs. ISSA Green
Power Solution and others (supra), I find that the
appellants have made out sufficient cause to allow the appeal.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal
is allowed. Delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-
parte decree is condoned and the order dated 8/12/1999
dismissing the suit and the impugned order dated 21/12/1999
are set aside. Appellants are further directed to deposit the
cost of Rs. 3000/- which is to be paid to the defendants. The
trial Court will make all endeavour to conclude the trial of the
suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months
from the date of submission of the certified copy of the order.
Certified copy as per rules.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Har Prasad & Anr on 18 November, 2009
In the case
of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, (1981) 2 SCC
788 and Ram Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Har Prasad and
another, (2010) 1 SCC 391, the Apex Court has held that
litigant should not suffer for the mistake of counsel.
Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr on 16 April, 1981
In the case
of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, (1981) 2 SCC
788 and Ram Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Har Prasad and
another, (2010) 1 SCC 391, the Apex Court has held that
litigant should not suffer for the mistake of counsel.
Section 141 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Dilip Kumar Sharma vs Ankam Nageswara Rao . on 17 March, 2015
When there is no negligence, inaction or want of
bonafide is imputable to the appellants, the delay
has to be condoned. The discretion is to be
exercised like any other judicial discretion with
vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is
not to be exercised in any arbitrary, vague or
fanciful manner. The true test is to see whether
the applicant has acted with due diligence
Similarly in the case of Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs. Ankam
Nageswara Rao and others, (2015) 14 SCC 555, the Apex
Court has held that in the case of dismissal of suit for want of
prosecution, liberal approach has to be adopted.
1