Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Kunhikayyumma And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 1983 cites

Durgalal vs Asharafilal (Decd.) And Ors. on 7 May, 1973

8. Counsel for the appellants next attempted to emphasize the fact that the application was bereft of any averment which would enable a court to detect even a vestige of "sufficient cause" in justification of the delay in making the application. Even if there are justifiable grounds alleged to make out a sufficient cause, that would not be sufficient cause for an order setting aside the abatement. The facts alleged have to be established. When the facts are not even alleged, let alone established, no court of law can set aside an abatement, which automatically sets in on the death of the defendant, after the expiry of the period made mention of in Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Instances where the courts have dismissed the application on the ground of non-establishment of such sufficient cause were referred to in support of the submission of counsel. The decisions included those in Durgalal v. Asharafilal, AIR 1973 Rai 332, and Sadassiva Rauji Gaitonde v. Jose Joaquim Fonseca, AIR 1976 Goa 11. Two decisions of the Bombay High Court and a decision of the Calcutta High Court were considered by Shukla, Addl. J. C. in the aforesaid decisions.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bachan Ram And Ors. vs The Gram Panchayat Jonda And Ors. on 19 October, 1970

"I therefore do not find myself in agreement with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bachan-ram's case, AIR 1971 Puni & Har 243 (supra) that an application made after the expiry of the period prescribed by law of limitation to bring on record the legal representatives should be treated as an application for setting aside an abatement....."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Janakinath Singha Ray vs Nirodbaran Ray And Ors. on 6 March, 1929

In support of the view so taken the general observations of the Supreme Court contained in Union of India v. Ramcharan, AIR 1964 SC 215 and the decisions in Janakinath Singha Ray v. Nirodbaran Ray, AIR 1930 Cal 422, and Kundanmal Uttamchand v. Jwalaprasad, AIR 1963 Madh Pra 183, were referred to. The general observations of tha Supreme Court do not in any way militate against the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the other decisions noted above. The view expressed in the Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh decisions has to be understood in the background of the peculiar facts disclosed in those cases, which revealed a culpable conduct and negligence of the petitioner. I cannot persuade myself to enthusiastically adopt the unnecessarily restricted view, which has only the effect of deflecting the course of justice on the basis of technical contentions in matters of a procedural nature. To do so would be to forget a salutary principle indicated by Boven, LJ long time back when he observed that "the rules of procedure are only hand maids of justice." The court below was fully justified in treating the application as one in which a prayer for setting aside the abatement was implicit. To yield to a different view, and confining attention to a literal understanding of the statements in the petition would be to permit a monstrous hyper-technicality to prevail over substantial justice. I have no hesitation to discountenance such a plea.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963

12. The decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Charan. AIR 1964 SC 215, on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellants, is not as absolute as may be thought of at first sight. No doubt, the insistence on there being sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement had been highlighted in that decision. However, a close reading of para 12 of the judgment, particularly the last sentence thereof, would point out that the position is not one of absolute inflexibility. That Clearly is the effect of the following passage contained therein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 216 - R Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next