Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)
Mahinder Kaur & Anr. vs Pamela Manmohan Singh & Ors. on 29 May, 2015 cites

J.Kumaradasan Nair & Anr vs Iric Sohan & Ors on 12 February, 2009

16. At this stage, reference to the factual matrix of the present case would be appropriate. The order dated 23.09.2003 of the High Court reveals that the 5 J.Kumaradasan Nair & Anr. v. IRIC Sohan & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1333 6 Consolidated Engineering (supra) 7 Consolidated Engineering (supra) CM(M) 572/2011 Page 9 of 15 execution petition pending before it had been transferred to the District Court in view of Section 2 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had been transferred to the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 10.02.2004 since the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is noteworthy that a copy of the plaint had been filed by the objector(s)/petitioners themselves to show the valuation of the suit. The learned counsel for the objectors/petitioners was also present when the order dated 10.02.2004 was passed. This would imply that the petitioners were always aware of the law, i.e., Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2003 and were beneficiaries of sound legal assistance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal against the order dated 30.06.2006 was filed before the High Court upon incorrect legal advice or due to inadvertence. The High Court also granted an interim stay on 18.04.2006 in favour of the petitioners. An objection to the maintainability of the connected appeal bearing EFA No. 5/2007 was raised on 28.05.2007 wherein the learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to study the matter. The learned counsel had admitted that if EFA No. 5/2007 was not maintainable, then the connected appeal bearing EFA No. 13/2006 would also not be maintainable. This Court would notice that on 28.05.2007, when the connected appeals bearing EFA Nos. 13/2006 and 5/2007 were taken up, counsel for the petitioners (appellants therein) in both the cases were present. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that their appeal was not maintainable. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no objection apropos the maintainability of EFA No. 13/2006 was taken is without substance is untenable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 87 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008

v. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 3284; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169 4 Debjyoti Gupta v. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. & Anr., (2013) 202 DLT 563; Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 683; Union of India v. M/s. Damyanti Builders & Anr., (2010) VII AD (Delhi) 140; Mohinder Prakash v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., (2012) 195 DLT 357; Jitender Kumar Gupta v. Sukhbir Singh Saini, (2012) 192 DLT 438; Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali, AIR 2011 SC 489; J. H. Nelson v. S. Thkur Singh, (1967) LXIX PLR 64 CM(M) 572/2011 Page 8 of 15 principles thereof would be applicable for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing an appeal or a revision in terms of Section 5 of the Act.5
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 274 - J M Panchal - Full Document

Debjyoti Gupta vs Indiabulls Securities Ltd. & Anr. on 25 April, 2012

v. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 3284; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169 4 Debjyoti Gupta v. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. & Anr., (2013) 202 DLT 563; Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 683; Union of India v. M/s. Damyanti Builders & Anr., (2010) VII AD (Delhi) 140; Mohinder Prakash v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., (2012) 195 DLT 357; Jitender Kumar Gupta v. Sukhbir Singh Saini, (2012) 192 DLT 438; Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali, AIR 2011 SC 489; J. H. Nelson v. S. Thkur Singh, (1967) LXIX PLR 64 CM(M) 572/2011 Page 8 of 15 principles thereof would be applicable for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing an appeal or a revision in terms of Section 5 of the Act.5
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Ramji Pandey & Ors vs Swaran Kali on 25 October, 2010

v. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 3284; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169 4 Debjyoti Gupta v. Indiabulls Securities Ltd. & Anr., (2013) 202 DLT 563; Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 683; Union of India v. M/s. Damyanti Builders & Anr., (2010) VII AD (Delhi) 140; Mohinder Prakash v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., (2012) 195 DLT 357; Jitender Kumar Gupta v. Sukhbir Singh Saini, (2012) 192 DLT 438; Ramji Pandey & Ors. v. Swaran Kali, AIR 2011 SC 489; J. H. Nelson v. S. Thkur Singh, (1967) LXIX PLR 64 CM(M) 572/2011 Page 8 of 15 principles thereof would be applicable for the purpose of condonation of delay in filing an appeal or a revision in terms of Section 5 of the Act.5
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - M Sharma - Full Document

Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969

In a case of the present type, it was incumbent on the tenant to give full particulars 8 Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953 9 ILR 1970 (2) DEL 60 10 J.H.Nelson (supra) CM(M) 572/2011 Page 11 of 15 of the legal advice and if possible to support it by an affidavit of the legal adviser that he had given such advice after due care and attention. Mere broad and general plea that the tenant had under legal advice and bona fide belief been prosecuting with the due diligence another proceeding for the getting the ex-parte order set aside is, in my opinion, not enough on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Due diligence and caution are, in my view, essential pre-requisites before section 14, Limitation Act, can be attracted. The litigants seeking relief under section 5, Limitation Act, on the ground of mistaken advice of their counsel must place material before the Court from which it is possible to deduce that the counsel acted in "good faith"; in other words, with "due care and attention". A mistake due to negligence or want of reasonable skill can scarcely be considered to fall within the definition of good faith as defined in the Limitation Act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 242 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next