Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Raghunath Prasad Lahre vs Srei Equipment Finance Ltd & Anr. on 27 July, 2018 cites

Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011

"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 : (2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 : (2012 AIR SCW 2412.) // 4 //
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 594 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S. Samia International Builders (P) ... vs Neeta Rani on 3 November, 2015

9. In M/s. Samia International Builders (P.) Ltd. Vs. Neeta Rani, 2016 (1) CPR 19 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Sufficient cause for condoning delay in each case question of fact. No leniency should be shown to such type of litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing merit less petitions in different foras."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 7 - Cited by 102 - Full Document

Bappanand Narshimman Annu vs Hiramanidevi G.S. Gupta And Ors. Etc. ... on 30 January, 2017

"8. Tested on the touchstone of the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., 'sufficient cause' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that a case for condonation of the said delay was not made out."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Manager Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. & ... vs Raghunath Prasad Lahre on 5 July, 2018

13. We have perused the record of the District Forum. Earlier the OPs have filed Appeal No.FA/2018/245, Manager, Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. and Another Vs. Raghunath Prasad Lahre, and vide order dated 5th July, 2018, this Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the OPs and impugned order dated 16.02.2018, passed by the District Forum, was set aside. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant stand dismissed. It shows that in the month of April, 2018 the OPs have filed Appeal No.FA/2018/245 before this Commission against the order dated 16.02.2018, passed by the District Forum and vide order dated 05.07.2018, the appeal of the OPs was allowed by this Commission and complaint of the complainant was dismissed. Even, then the complainant filed the instant appeal before this // 8 // Commission, whereas the appeal filed by the OPs has already been allowed and the complaint, was dismissed, therefore, the only remedy available to the complainant is to file Revision Petition before the Hon'ble National Commission. Instead of filing Revision Petition before Hon'ble National Commission, the appellant (complainant) has filed the instant appeal, which is not maintainable. Even the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant (complainant) belatedly.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Manindra Land And Buildingcorporation ... vs Bhutnath Banerjee And Others on 2 May, 1963

"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 : (2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 : (2012 AIR SCW 2412.) // 4 //
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 468 - R Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next