Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Retail Asset Division ... vs Triveni Singh on 1 April, 2013 cites

Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors vs Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr on 19 August, 2011

6.      The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties, submitted that, on 19.11.2012, when the complaint case was fixed for filing of vakalatnama, written version, and evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, he (Counsel in the complaint also), could not come present, in the District Forum, in time, due to some unavoidable circumstances. He further submitted that, by the time he reached the District Forum, the Opposite Parties, were already proceeded against exparte. He further submitted that, an application for restoration of the order dated 19.11.2012, was also moved, in the District Forum, but the same was dismissed by it, on the ground, that it had no Jurisdiction, to review its own order, in view of the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, in case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr., IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC). He further submitted that, in case, the exparte order, is not set aside, a grave miscarriage of justice is likely to occasion, to the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties, as, in that event, they will be condemned unheard. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 625 - D Bhandari - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Another vs Shamlal Murari & Anr on 6 October, 1975

In State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, also the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmaid of justice and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 262 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1