cites: 201515

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)

Musaliarakath Muhamad Alias Bava vs M.R. Ry. Manavikrama The Zamorin Rajah ... on 23 March, 1922 cites

Satish Chandra Mukerjee vs Ahara Prasad Mukerjee on 30 January, 1907

In Satish Chandra Mukerjee v. Ahara Prasad Mukerjee (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 403 a full bench of the Calcutta High Court held that an application by a pleader who is instructed to apply for an adjournment which is refused is not an appearance within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and that a dismissal in such cases is for default.

Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

M.R. Venkatarama Aiyar vs Nataraja Aiyar on 17 December, 1912

I think we are justified in declining to treat it as an authority on what constitutes default and I observe that in a later case Venkatarama Ayyar v. Nataraja Ayyar (1913) 24 M.L.J. 235 another Bench of this Court has held, without reference to it, that where the Vakil was not instructed to argue the case but only to apply for an adjournment there was no appearance.

Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 8245

Venkatarama Iyer And Ors. vs Duraisami Iyer on 1 November, 1904

In Venkatarama Iyer v. Nataraja Iyer (1912) 21 M.L.J. 235 it was held there was no appearance where the pleader only applied for an adjournment.

Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Satish Chandra Mukerjee vs Ahara Prasad Mukerjee on 30 January, 1907

M.R. Venkatarama Aiyar vs Nataraja Aiyar on 17 December, 1912

Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]

Venkatarama Iyer And Ors. vs Duraisami Iyer on 1 November, 1904