AMITAVA ROY
Bogidhola Tea and Trading Company (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kothari Plantations and Industries Ltd. – Respondent
Amitava Roy, J.
1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereafter also referred to as the 'Act'), read with Order 41 Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter for short referred to as the 'Code'), is for condonation of delay of 234 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Golaghat in Money Suit No. 18 of 2004, decreeing the same ex-parte against the applicants.
2. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Singh, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. N. Dutta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Goswami, Advocate for the opposite party. Mr. M. Khataniar, Advocate, has been heard for the applicant, Mr. N. Rabidas in Misc. Case No. 2520/2008.
3. The abridged facts are that the opposite party had instituted the aforementioned suit against the applicants as Defendants for Rs. 6,98,171/-, which was decreed ex-parte by the aforementioned judgment and decree. The Petitioners have pleaded that the summons in the suit were not served on them and that therefore, they were not aware of the institution and pendency thereof as well of th
Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. v. Abdul Hussain H.M. Hasan Bhai Rassiwala and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1163
Apangshu Mohan Lodh and Ors. v. State of Tripura and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 119
Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 86
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.