Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.72 seconds)Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
In Arjun Singh's case (supra), it was held that the order passed under Order IX, Rule 7, C.P.C. will not operate as res Judicata while dealing with an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. In the present case, so far, the decree has not been passed ex parte. In case the suit is decreed, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application under Order IX, Rule 13. C.P.C. Thus the decision in Arjun Singh's cose has got no application to the facts of this case.
Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
So far as the good cause and sufficient cause for non-appearance is concerned, the said words has been interpreted by the Hon'ble the Superme Court in the case of Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, 1955 AIR (SC) 425, as under:-
Prahlad Singh And Another vs Niyaz Ahmad And Others on 8 February, 2000
And in the case of Prahlad Singh and another Vs. Niyaz Ahmad and others, 2000 (18) LCD 757, it has been held as under:-
Savithri Amma Seethamma vs Aratha Karthy And Ors. on 7 January, 1983
In Savitri Amma Seethamma v. Artha Karthy, (1983) 1 SCC 401 : AIR 1983 SC 318, it was held that the non-appearance of a counsel at the time of hearing on account of being busy elsewhere was a sufficient cause to entitle a party for restoration of the proceedings. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
Punjab National Bank vs Vijay Kumar Kathpalia And Ors. on 3 November, 1983
In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Dhariwal, 1993 (11) LCD 1177, this Court has held as under:-
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, Presiding ... on 10 April, 2006
"Having gone through the judgment of the Court below and heard the learned Counsels for the parties I have not been able to find that any finding has been recorded by the Court below on the question of good cause for previous non-appearance of the defendant. There being no finding if good cause for previous non-appearance has been shown or established the Court below could not proceed with the passing of the order it had passed. When the law requires certain things to be done and conferred a power to doing that things in certain specified manner then by necessary implication what follows from it is that act has got to be done or that particular powers have got to be exercised in that manner alone and not otherwise, other modes of exercise of that power are closed, See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singham Singh , A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 358.
Gokarakonda Venkatasubbiah vs Deliparthi Lakshminarasimham And Anr. on 27 February, 1925
In our opinion, Wallace, J. was right in VenkataSubbiah v. Lakshminarassimham(5) in holding that "One cardinal principle to be observed in trials by a Court obviously is that a party has a right to (1) A.I.R 1945 Sind 98,102 (2) A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 12,14.
Maniben Devraj Shah vs Mun.Corp.Of Br.Mumbai on 9 April, 2012
And in the case of B. Madhuri Goud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) SCC 693, after placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Moniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corpn., 2012 (5) SCC 157, held as under:-