Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.37 seconds)J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
In the absence of
any explanation, the order passed by the Court below is contrary
to the principle laid down in "J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh"
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
No doubt, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu" (referred supra) is one of the
principles for exercise of power under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
But in the later judgment in "Rameshkumar Aggarwal v.
Rajamala Exports Private Limited and others2", the Apex
Court relying on "Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
Narayanaswamy & Sons and others3", while deciding the scope
of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C laid down certain guidelines
for granting or denying relief under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC viz.,
as follows:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S. S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr on 14 May, 2008
Similarly, in "Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S.
S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd5", the Apex Court laid down the
following conditions to grant application for amendment subject to
certain conditions:
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
No doubt, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu" (referred supra) is one of the
principles for exercise of power under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
But in the later judgment in "Rameshkumar Aggarwal v.
Rajamala Exports Private Limited and others2", the Apex
Court relying on "Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
Narayanaswamy & Sons and others3", while deciding the scope
of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C laid down certain guidelines
for granting or denying relief under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC viz.,
as follows:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1