Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Nanalal M. Varma And Co. (Gunnies) P. ... vs Gordhandas Jerambhai And Ors. on 22 May, 1964
Nanalal M. Varma and Co. (Gunnies) P. LTD.
Vs. Gordhandas Jerambhai & Ors. (supra)
and followed subsequently by the Calcutta
High Court cannot now be adopted."
Kamta Prasad vs Smt. Jaggiya And Others on 29 April, 1998
22. Similarly, in Kamta Prasad v. Smt. Jaggiya
W/o Solai and others, AIR 1999 Allahabad 184, it has
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 22:58:41 :::HCHP
19
held as under:
Article 122 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar &
Ors., AIR 1964 SC 993, this Court observed
that every good cause is a sufficient cause
and must offer an explanation for non
appearance. The only difference between a
"good cause" and "sufficient cause" is that
the requirement of a good cause is complied
with on a lesser degree of proof than that of
a "sufficient cause.
Firdous Omer (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Bankim Chandra Daw (D) By Lrs.& Ors on 28 July, 2006
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firdous Omer
(D) by Lrs & Ors. v. Bankim Chandra Daw (D) by LRS
& Ors., AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2759, has held as
under:
Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
In another judgment the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Parimal versus Veena alias Bharti (2011) 3
Supreme Court Cases 545, has held as under:
Ghanshyam Dass vs Rajender Kumar Kalra & Ors. on 17 October, 2016
Trained Graduate Teacher and is retired. He has stated
that a case titled Ghanshyam vs Rajender was also going
on against him and he had also filed another case titled
Krishan vs. Ghanshyam, which was also pending in the
Court below. He further stated that both these case were
1½ years old in which his counsel was Lekh Ram. He
agreed that case which was filed by respondent against
him was pending from the year 2010. He denied the
suggestion that the case was regarding interference and
was being caused by him in his land and that he did not
interfere in his land. He has stated that in the year 2010,
he went to Delhi, but had not specified about the same
in the application. He has agreed that he had not placed
on record any certificate regarding his illness. He has
denied that he used to visit the Court in between for the
case. He has further stated that his counsel told him
that he would call him whenever required. He agreed
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 22:58:41 :::HCHP
14
that the counsel was aware about the date and that he
came to know in August, 2010 about dismissal of his
case and his counsel did not inform him earlier and nor
.