Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.69 seconds)
Dr. Munjula Krippendorf Pathak vs Vijay Dixit And Ors. on 30 November, 2007 cites

G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000

10. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada and Ors. relied upon by Mr. Rai where the Court has declared that sufficient cause for non-appearance has reference to the date on which the suit was dismissed. Restoration, observed the Court, could not be denied on the ground of any previous negligence that have been overlooked or condoned. The following observations made by the Court are in this regard instructive:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 314 - Full Document

Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr on 16 April, 1981

Similarly in Rafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr. , the Court held that under the adverserial legal system that we have, the parties generally appear through their counsel to defend their cases. The Court was, in that case, interpreting the expression 'sufficient cause' in the context of the default of the advocate engaged by the party and declared that if the party had done everything that needed to be done in the matter, a default in appearance on the date the matter was taken up for hearing should not be a ground for refusing restoration. The Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 774 - D A Desai - Full Document
1