Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Madan Gopal Kanodia vs Mamraj Maniram And Ors. on 15 January, 1976
21. Hence in the case of Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj
Maniram (1977) 1 SCC 669 the Court considered the ambit of Order 13
Rule 2. The suit was between two wholesale businessmen. The Court
considered the purchase by them of certain bales of cloth for which the price
was not paid but, upon accounts, was to be taken to be adjusted. The
plaintiff was called upon to file a statement in writing giving better
particulars of his case under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC.
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
Whereas in the case of the
State of West Bengal (supra) no preferential treatment was claimed by the
Government or was observed could be granted to the Government, in this
case it has been observed:
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
23. The aforesaid case came to be followed in the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 in which
also the parameters of liberal approach for condoning delay in an application
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2015 23:57:59 :::
(11) CHSL 1137/15
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been set out more particularly
with regard to the cases of the Government.
State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
24. This case came to be further followed in the case of State of
::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2015 23:57:59 :::
(12) CHSL 1137/15
Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani AIR 1996 SC 1623 in which after setting out
the above parameters of the functioning of the Government the principle of
treatment required to be accorded to the State came to be extended thus:
Rajendrakumar Bhogilal Shaha vs Pushpa Damodar Nandurkar on 6 April, 2011
In the case of Rajendrakumar Bhogilal Shaha Vs. Pushpa
Damodar Nandurkar MANU/MH/0681/2011 this Court upon considering
the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court held that the trial commenced
with the performance of the first steps necessary or essential to proceed with
the trial. The Court, therefore, said that mere filing of the affidavit of
examination-in-chief may not necessarily amount to commencement of trial
unless the witness started his deposition and the affidavit in lieu of evidence
was proved and taken on record along with the documents. The Court
considered whether trial had begun in an application for allowing
amendments to the plaint without consideration of "due diligence" in not
producing them before.
Foreshore Co-Operative Housing ... vs Shri Praveen D. Desai And Ors. on 6 May, 2004
19. Mr. Madon relied upon the judgments under Order 6 Rule 17 as
also under Section 14 of the Limitation Act which also require the
prosecution of the suit in a Court without jurisdiction with due diligence to
be the yardstick for granting leave to the plaintiff to merely rely upon further
documents - in this case a document that defendant No.1 itself relied upon
to obtain the attorney's opinion. [See. Foreshore Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. Vs. Praveen D. Desai 2009(1) Bom.
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Foreshore Co-Operative Housing ... vs Praveen Desai And Ors. on 20 January, 2006
C. R. 757 and Foreshore
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Praveen Desai 2006(6) Bom. C. R.
230]. Consequently the judgments relied upon by Mr. Madon do not require
to be considered in this matter and need not be elaborated.