Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
In the matter of Gujarat Maritime Board v. G.C. Pandya 8, the
Supreme Court while following the principle of law laid down in
Balraj Taneja (supra) has clearly held that in a case where written
statement is not filed, the civil court has the jurisdiction to proceed
under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, however, orders are not
required to be passed in mechanical manner in exercise of powers
contained in Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC.
Union Of India And Others vs Manager M/S Jain And Associates on 6 February, 2001
10. The principle of law laid down in Balraj Taneja (supra) has been
followed with approval in the matter of Union of India and others
v. Manager, M/s Jain and Associates 4.
Bogidhola Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. And Anr vs Hira Lal Somani on 7 December, 2007
11.In the matter of Bogidhola Tea & Trading Company Limited and
another v. Hira Lal Somani 5 it was held by the Supreme Court
that in a case where prima facie case is found out from plaint, but
documents being insufficient for passing ex parte decree, without
adduction of oral evidence, the pleading raised in the plaint could
not be said to have been established.
C.N.Ramappa Gowda vs C.C.Chaqndergowda (D) By Lrs.& Anr on 23 April, 2012
In the matter of C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda
(Dead) by LRs. and another 6, the Supreme Court has held that
non-filing of written statement should not have penal consequences
and Court should proceed cautiously and exercise its discretion in a
just manner, and held as under: -
Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs Tata Engineerng & Locomotive ... on 18 March, 2013
In the matter of Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata
Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and another 7,
the Supreme Court while noticing and following its earlier
pronouncement on the subject i.e. Balraj Taneja (supra), held that
Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC is discretionary and court has to be
more cautious while exercising such power where the defendant
fails to file written statement and in such circumstances, the court
must be satisfied that there is no fact, which needs to be proved, in
spite of deemed admission by the defendant and court must give
7 (2013) 4 SCC 396
8
reasons for passing such judgment.
Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo on 27 September, 1988
8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Modula India v. Kamakshya
Singh Deo 2 considering the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 10
of the CPC has held in para 23 that the said provision is permissive
in nature and observed as under: -
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mathew Elenjical And Anr. vs The Nagpur Roman Catholic Diocesan ... on 5 October, 1977
7. The aforesaid provision was considered by the M.P. High Court in
the matter of Mathew Elenjical and another v. The Nagpur
Roman Catholic Diocesan Corpn. (P) Ltd. 1 and held that by
virtue of Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court is not obliged
necessarily to pronounce judgment against a defendant merely
because the defendant has failed to file the written statement within
the time given by the Court and observed as under: -
Gujarat Maritime Board vs G.C.Pandya on 13 April, 2015
In the matter of Gujarat Maritime Board v. G.C. Pandya 8, the
Supreme Court while following the principle of law laid down in
Balraj Taneja (supra) has clearly held that in a case where written
statement is not filed, the civil court has the jurisdiction to proceed
under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, however, orders are not
required to be passed in mechanical manner in exercise of powers
contained in Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC.