Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.77 seconds)
Machine Tools Aids India vs Ms Gnc Infra Llp & Anr. on 6 January, 2023 cites

Sunil Poddar & Ors vs Union Bank Of India on 8 January, 2008

d. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Sunil Poddar and Ors. vs. Union Bank of India (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent would not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the decision did not deal with the amended provisions of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. That apart, in the present case, neither any order to issue summons nor any summons were at all issued by the Trial Court itself.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 147 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Ht Media Limited & Anr. vs Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr. on 17 December, 2021

e. The judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court in HT Media Limited & Ors. vs. Brainlink International, Inc. & Ors. (supra), is distinguishable on facts. In that case, summons were indeed issued by the Court by its order and the defendant in that case had started appearing, though without filing his Signature Not Verified written statement. Thus, the Coordinate Bench was of the Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR CM(M) 1325/2022 19 Signing Date:10.01.2023 16:14:51 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000160 opinion that the appearance by defendant would amount to waiver of service of the summons of the suit. However, in the present case, the Trial Court itself was satisfied after scrutinizing its record that no order to issue summons was at all passed by the Trial Court nor was any summons issued.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - A Menon - Full Document

Shailesh Gupta And Ors vs Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd And ... on 12 September, 2022

Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000160 b. Learned Division Bench of High Court of Maharashtra at Mumbai in Sunil Gupta vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Ors (supra), in Para 45, relied upon the judgement rendered by another Division Bench of the same High Court in Tardeo Properties Pvt. Ltd. v/s Bank of Baroda reported in MANU/MH/1736/2007 whereby, in Para 25 & 26, it was held as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - K R Shriram - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

28. Rule 1 of Order V, CPC makes it clear that once a suit is instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. However, under first proviso, which is applicable to the ordinary suits, the defendant is permitted to file written statement beyond the 30 days period but within the 90 days from the date of service of summons. It is trite that this proviso has been held to be construed liberally and written statement even beyond 90 days period has been directed to be taken on record, for justifiable reasons. The said proposition is settled by the Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors, reported in 2005 (4) SCC 480.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next