Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 28 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The General Accident Fire And Life ... vs Janmahomed Abdul Rahim on 17 September, 1940
The Privy Council, in General Fire and Life Assurance
Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim (AIR 1941 PC 6),
relied upon the writings of Mr.Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures
1932 wherein it has been said that :
P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997
In P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. (AIR
1998 SC 2276), the Supreme Court, while considering a case of
condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation
much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for
condonation of delay had been given, held as under:-
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
While considering a similar issue, the Supreme Court, in
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors.
(2013)12 SCC 649, laid down various principles inter alia:
Section 4 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 23 September, 1971
In the decision of M/s. Bharat
Barrel & Drum MFG. Co Vs. the Employees
State Insurance Corporation [1971 (2) SCC
860], Honourable Supreme Court held as
under:
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs Pranab Ranjan Roy on 6 March, 1998
7. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, albeit in a different context, in
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PRANAB RANJAN ROY
[(1998) 3 SCC 209]: "Order 41 Rule 17 of the
Code deals with the consequence when the
appellant in an appeal does not "appear". In
all such instances, "appearance" would include
appearance by the advocate, because it is
made so clear in Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code that
any appearance required by law to be made in
any court may be made "by the party in person,
or by his recognized agent or by his pleader on
his behalf". Therefore, if these provisions are
strictly applied, it would be illogical to
ascribe plurality to a party in the matter of
appearance according to its convenience.
Ram Nath And Others vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And ... on 10 November, 1987
10. In RAM NATH v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
[1987 (Supp) SCC 683 ], where a petition was
filed for recalling the order even on the
ground that the learned counsel was busy in
another court on the date of hearing, Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed
as under:
1