Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Binod Bihari Singh vs Union Of India on 8 December, 1992
In Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, 1993 (1) SCC 572, it was ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd on 5 February, 1993
In the case of Salil Dutta (supra), also, the Apex Court has ruled that if the conduct of a party is found to be non-cooperative with the Court, a restoration application by such a party should not be allowed.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Intezar Ahmad And Another vs Jumman And Others on 15 February, 1995
15. Even In the case of Intezar Ahmad and Another (supra), this Court held that goodness of cause for non-appearance envisaged in Rule 7 of Order IX of the Code and truthfulness of the cause for non-appearance are not synonymous. They are quite distinct. Once the cause for default in appearance is found to be untrue, it cannot be held to be a good cause and the prayer for setting aside the order directing the suit to be heard ex parte cannot be allowed.
1