Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.76 seconds)
Harcharan Singh vs Pushpal Devi And Others on 17 March, 2015 cites

Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, 2005 (6) SCC 344, this Court had an VARINDER SINGH 2015.03.27 18:12 CR No. 3925 of 2013 (6) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh occasion to examine whether the restriction placed by the amendment of Section 148 on the power of the Court to grant extension of time beyond 30 days was reasonable. This Court held that a power that is inherent in the Court to pass orders that it considers necessary for meeting the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the process of the Court cannot be taken away by putting an upper limit on the period for which an extension can be granted. Extension beyond the maximum period of 30 days was accordingly held permissible in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 1674 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

D.V.Paul vs Manisha Lalwani on 18 August, 2010

11. The judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in Smt. Parmeshri and Salwant Singh' s cases (supra), are not relevant in the light of authoritative enunciation of law by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in D. V. Paul's case (supra). Even the plea raised by counsel for the respondents that the respondents did not file appeal as the petitioner had not deposited the Court fee in time, is merely to be noticed and rejected. Deposit of court fee was not one of the condition precedent to be considered by the respondents to exercise their right of appeal in case they were aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 29 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Parmeshri vs Naurata on 10 May, 1984

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the judgments of this Court in Smt. Parmeshri vs Naurata 1984 PLR 591 and Salwant Singh vs Harinderpal Singh and others 2014 (4) PLR 44, submitted that time granted by the Court cannot be extended especially if the same is part of the decree. Even as per Section 148 CPC extension cannot be granted beyond a period of 30 days. In the application for extension of time filed by the petitioner no reason has been mentioned to justify non-deposit of Court fee within the time granted by the Court. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. As the petitioner did not deposit the Court fee in time, the respondents also did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, a valuable right has accrued in their favour which should not be disturbed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next