Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Deepak vs Ramesh Sethi on 8 April, 2022 cites

State Bank Of India vs Km. Chandra Govindji on 8 November, 2000

5. The issue in controversy being narrow, it is not necessary to allude to the specifics of the dispute between the parties. Suffice it to state that, by order dated 27th February, 2020, the petitioner was directed to file its defence evidence in the suit, on or before 22nd April, 2020. I may note, here, that Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent, has sought to contend that the petitioner had been remiss on earlier occasions. That, in my view, may not be of particular significance, especially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Chandra Govindji1, in which case the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that, where the refusal of the Court below to grant adjournment on a particular date was under challenge, adjournments granted earlier were irrelevant, as there was a presumption that they were granted for good reason.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Sagufa Ahmed vs Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd on 18 September, 2020

7. Mr. Tripathi has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Product Pvt. Ltd.3. In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation in which the normal period of limitation for moving the Court had expired prior to 15th March, 2020, and the litigant was seeking the benefit of the order dated 23rd March, 2020, in Cognisance for Extension of Limitation2, on the ground that the condonable period of limitation had expired after 15th March, 2020. The Supreme Court turned down the request, opining that the benefit of its order dated 23rd March, 2020, as available only to vigilant litigants and would not in any case apply where the normal period of limitation had expired prior to 15th March, 2020.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 31 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1