Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Sri G.R. Srinivas Reddy @ Babu vs Mrs. Latha Sharma on 18 July, 2023 cites

Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra on 9 May, 2022

5. Shri M. Arun Ponappa, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 sought to support impugned order. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra v/s Raj Kishan Chabra, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, had held referring to it's earlier decision in Kailash v/s Nanhku and Ors., reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480, that delay in filing written statement could be condoned by -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24973 WP No. 30015 of 2019 compensating plaintiff with costs.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

5. Shri M. Arun Ponappa, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 sought to support impugned order. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra v/s Raj Kishan Chabra, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, had held referring to it's earlier decision in Kailash v/s Nanhku and Ors., reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480, that delay in filing written statement could be condoned by -5- NC: 2023:KHC:24973 WP No. 30015 of 2019 compensating plaintiff with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

A.V. Purushotam vs N.K. Nagaraj on 5 June, 2003

Learned counsel also relied upon decision of this Court in A.V.Purushotam v/s N.K.Nagaraj, reported in ILR 2003 Kar. 2459. It was alternatively submitted that defendants would be entitled to seek permission of trial Court to file written statement at any time, upto stage of passing judgment. Trial Court having invoked such power and impugned order being discretionary, would not call for interference. It was also submitted that in case of remand, defendants be reserved liberty to supplement their applications with affidavit of party as refusal to permit filing of written statement would cause to grave injustice to them.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - N Kumar - Full Document

Sri Ashok Murthy vs Smt Muniyamma on 28 April, 2020

3. Though, application was opposed, trial Court under impugned order allowed same on cost. It was submitted that order was totally unsustainable, as trial Court failed to apply its mind to requirements of law, while passing impugned order. It was submitted that this Court in case of Sri Ashok Murthy and Ors. v/s Smt.Muniyamma since deceased by her LRs and Ors., reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 2877 and in Smt.Chandrakala v/s Smt.Hanumakka and Ors., reported in 2018 (2) KCCR 1124, had held that delay in filing written -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24973 WP No. 30015 of 2019 statement could not be condoned for mere asking. Only under exceptional circumstances, in case non-extension would render grave injustice and where delay was not on account of laxity and gross negligence on part of defendants or counsel, same could be extended.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S G Pandit - Full Document

Smt Chandrakala vs Smt Hanumakka on 30 October, 2017

3. Though, application was opposed, trial Court under impugned order allowed same on cost. It was submitted that order was totally unsustainable, as trial Court failed to apply its mind to requirements of law, while passing impugned order. It was submitted that this Court in case of Sri Ashok Murthy and Ors. v/s Smt.Muniyamma since deceased by her LRs and Ors., reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 2877 and in Smt.Chandrakala v/s Smt.Hanumakka and Ors., reported in 2018 (2) KCCR 1124, had held that delay in filing written -4- NC: 2023:KHC:24973 WP No. 30015 of 2019 statement could not be condoned for mere asking. Only under exceptional circumstances, in case non-extension would render grave injustice and where delay was not on account of laxity and gross negligence on part of defendants or counsel, same could be extended.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document
1