SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Synergytech Automation Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
SMC Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appellant's application for setting aside ex-parte decree. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. adjudication of sufficient cause for non-appearance. (Para 2)
3. interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By virtue of the present appeal, Appellant-original Defendant before learned trial court, has impugned the judgement dated 16.12.2021 (hereinafter referred as the "impugned judgment") passed by learned trial court dismissing its application under Order IX Rule 13 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the "Code") for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.02.2020 (hereinafter referred as the "ex-parte decree").

2. In the present appeal the sole issue for adjudication before us is "Whether the appellant was able to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause from not appearing before the learned trial court?" For this, we have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for appellant based on the material on record before us coupled with the conduct of appellant before the learned trial court.

3. Respondent-original Plaintiff before lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top