Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (2.57 seconds)
Devender Kumar Sharma vs Ramesh Arora on 28 November, 2025 cites

Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011

49. Firstly, as already discussed, service was 'duly effected', and the repeated postal endorsements were either of 'refused' or addressee did not approach despite information, which give rise to a presumption of due service Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR RFA (COMM) 603/2025 15 of 16 Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:52:15 under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consistent with Parimal v. Veena (supra), such a presumption can be rebutted only by evidence of impeccable character, which appellant has not furnished.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 594 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Vishwabandhu vs Sri Krishna on 29 September, 2021

In light of Parimal v. Veena (supra) and Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna (supra), such endorsements give rise to a statutory presumption of due service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which the appellant has failed to rebut by any credible material. Appellant has neither disputed the correctness of the addresses nor produced any evidence of impeccable character to displace the presumption. Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in treating service as duly effected and in proceeding ex parte when appellant failed to appear or file a written statement within the prescribed time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961

13. "Sufficient cause" is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR RFA (COMM) 603/2025 13 of 16 Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:52:15 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 and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party had not 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 the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining 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. (Vide Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] , Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi [AIR 1968 SC 222] , Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood [(1992) 1 SCC 70 : AIR 1992 SC 1540] and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [(2010) 5 SCC 459 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 50 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1291: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 448])
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 816 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat vs Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr on 20 April, 1967

13. "Sufficient cause" is an expression which has been used in a large number of statutes. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, word "sufficient" embraces no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR RFA (COMM) 603/2025 13 of 16 Signing Date:28.11.2025 11:52:15 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 and duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party had not 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 the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining 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. (Vide Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361] , Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi [AIR 1968 SC 222] , Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood [(1992) 1 SCC 70 : AIR 1992 SC 1540] and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [(2010) 5 SCC 459 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 50 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1291: (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 448])
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 150 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next