Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 28A in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Ghasiram Das vs Srimati Arundhati Das And Anr. on 17 September, 1993
In , Ghasiram Das v. Srimati Arundhati Das & Anr., a learned Judge of that High Court considered various procedures that could be taken in the case of non-compliance of the order. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, learned Judge held thus :
Shanti Devi vs Balbir Singh And Anr. on 3 February, 1971
To the same extent is the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in the same Volume at page 35 Kanti Devi v. Balbir Singh. There also, a learned Judge of that High Court said that the defence of the spouse who violates the direction of Court is liable to be struck off.
Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao vs Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala on 8 September, 1989
In II(1990) DMC 486,Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao v. Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had also occasion to consider a similar question, and it was held thus :
Anuradha @ Chanchal Kumari vs Santosh Nath Khanna on 9 April, 1975
Stay of the proceedings in such circumstances may not be a proper solution to the problem. The next alternative by which the Courts may enforce the order is to strike out the pleadings of the defaulting party. Whether it will be permissible in law for taking such a course requires consideration. The Delhi High Court in a decision , Smt. Anuradha v. Santosh Nath Channa, has observed that it is open to the Court to enforce obedience of its order or to prevent abuse of its process by staying the proceedings or striking off the defence or by temporarily suspending its operation without prejudice to any other action that may be taken according to law. The phrase "striking off the defence" would be applicable where the defendant is the defaulting party and where the plaintiff is the defaulter it naturally follows that his pleading can also be struck down for non-compliance of the order.
Smt. Malkan Rani vs Krishan Kumar on 21 April, 1960
Their Lordships of Punjab High Court in the decision , Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar, have expressed that Section 28 (now Section 28-A) gives the right to a party to recover such an amount by taking execution proceedings but it does not affect the Court's power to exercise its jurisdiction equitably and in such a way as to prevent abuse of its process.
1