Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)
Jai Gopal Goyal And Anr. vs Bishen Dayal Goyal on 30 April, 2007 cites

Bank Of India vs M/S Mehta Brothers And Others on 28 February, 1991

In Bank of India v. Mehta Brothers and Ors. AIR 1991 Delhi 194, there was default in appearance of the counsel on a number of dates. The defendant had entrusted the case to a firm of solicitors and was under the belief that the case was being conducted by its lawyers. Steps were taken the moment it was informed of the ex parte decree. The court found sufficient cause for setting aside of the ex parte decree.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Indian Sewing Machines Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Sansar Machine Ltd. And Anr. on 19 September, 1994

12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs referred to the judgment of a learned single judge (as he then was) of this Court in Indian Sewing Machines Co. Pvt Ltd. v. Sansar Machine Ltd. and Anr. , where the plea of negligent absence by the counsel was taken by the applicant seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The applicant failed to prove his diligence in pursuing the case or his counsel and gave no explanation about steps taken to prepare or file the written statement. It was held that no sufficient cause was made out for setting aside the ex parte decree. The court observed that there is no dispute on the principle of law that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault of his counsel. However, the question to be examined is whether the responsibility of the defendants ends merely by engaging a counsel and should not a litigant show diligence on his part. It can be understood if a litigant has been diligent enough and acting bona fide then the fault of the counsel may not be labelled as a penalty against the litigant.?
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

The National Small Industries ... vs M/S Industrial Textile Products (P) ... on 7 November, 2000

15. I am of the considered view that this is one more case of that category. The facts and order sheets referred to above in the present case show the negligent manner in which the defendant has been proceeding not only in the present suit but also in other legal proceedings between the parties. No doubt as a legal principle, a party has to explain the absence on a particular date in a particular matter, but the court can certainly take cognizance of a continued trend to evade legal proceedings. In the criminal proceedings filed by the defendant, he failed to appear resulting in dismissal of the same. In the criminal proceedings filed against the defendant, the defendant has been declared a proclaimed offender. These criminal proceedings arise out of the same dispute. Not only that the suit filed by the defendant for possession in respect of the present dispute was also simultaneously dismissed when the ex parte proceedings were initiated in the present suit and no steps have been taken for the last about six years for restoration of the suit. It is only when the defendant faced the consequences of the decree passed in the present suit that the present application has been filed.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - V Sen - Full Document

Lalit Mohan Puri vs Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. on 30 October, 1991

13. On consideration of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and the case law cited at the Bar, I am of the considered view that there is no dispute about the legal principle that an innocent litigant must not be allowed to suffer due to the fault of his counsel. Simultaneously, it is also a settled legal principle that a litigant must show due diligence in pursuing or defending the case and mere entrustment of a case to the counsel does not absolve the litigant of all responsibilities. The observations made in Indian Sewing Machines Co.Pvt. Ltd's Case (supra) thus lucidly set forth this aspect.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1