Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Sambhaji Khanduji Nagare vs Taher Khan S/O Wahed Khan on 31 July, 2013 cites

Oriental Aroma Chemical Indus.Ltd vs Gujarat Indisl.Devt.Corp.& Anr on 26 February, 2010

15. The learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra) and submits that the respondent No. 1 has not approached the District Court with clean hands and, there is inordinate delay of nine years and eleven months in filing the appeal. Therefore, this Court may allow the revision application. It is true that in the given case, the delay of few days in absence of sufficient cause cannot be condoned. However, if sufficient cause is disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, in that case, the Court can always exercise discretion and condone delay. In the facts of the present case, I do not think that the respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands. The ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:13:13 ::: cra12.13 32 respondent No.1 has disclosed all the relevant facts before the appellate Court and also before this Court. The District Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found that the address of respondent No.1 mentioned in the suit summons at village Satara is not correct and the applicant has proved that he is residing since 1994-95 at Peer Bazar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 724 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997

He further invited my attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in case of P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala and another [AIR 1998 SC 2276] and in particular, para 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:13:12 ::: cra12.13 9 thereof and submitted that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by Statute and Courts have no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 733 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior vs Motilal Munnalal on 31 March, 1977

Rule 3A of Order 41 of CPC provides for an application for condonation of delay when appeal is presented after expiry of period of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:13:13 ::: cra12.13 23 limitation specified therefor. Therefore, upon conjoint reading of the provisions and procedure for filing the appeal, and an application for condonation of delay, it is abundantly clear that there is no any condition laid down under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code that whenever application is filed for condonation of delay, the appellant cannot take a ground of non service of summons in the application for condonation of delay. The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Nagar Palika Nigam Gwalior (supra) and that of Kerala High Court in case of Brijitha vs Kuttiyamma (supra) are not binding upon this Court. Apart from that, the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is prior to the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mahesh Yadav & Anr vs Rajeshwar Singh & Ors on 16 December, 2008

Therefore, the Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Yadav and anr (supra), in para 15 has clearly laid down that the defendants may have more than one remedies to challenge the ex parte decree including filing an appeal. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the respondent No.1 should have filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and not an appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C., needs no consideration in view of the fact that the respondent No.1 has choice to file appeal. When the appeal is filed, there is a remedy for filing an application for condonation of delay, if appeal is barred by limitation. If the appellant can take the grounds available to him in order to disclose sufficient cause for not ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:13:13 ::: cra12.13 26 filing appeal within the period of limitation, he can certainly take a ground of non service of suit summons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972

appreciation of the evidence in the revisional jurisdiction and the view taken by the appellate Court is a possible view and therefore, in revisional jurisdiction, the said view needs no interference. He also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in case of Ramesh Madhavrao Shelke vs Bhaskar s/o Seetaram Pradhan [2010(O) BCI 274] and in particular, para 9 thereof, the judgment in case of Shri M.L. Sethi vs. Shri R.P. Kapur [AIR 1972 SC 2379] and also in case of Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hyderabad and another v/s Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. [AIR 1973 SC 76] and relying upon the aforesaid judgments, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there is a limited scope in revisional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 119 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 Next