Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Eveready Industries India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Anoop Agencies – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.
List has been revised. Counsel for the respondents is not present.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh in Misc. Case No. 53 of 2004 whereby he has rejected the application under Section 5 of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to recall the ex parte judgment dated 17.4.2004 passed in Original Suit No. 125 of 1998 instituted by respondents and order dated 24.5.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Azamgarh affirming the order of trial Court dated 3.3.2006.
4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Original Suit No. 125 of 1998 instituted by respondents was decreed on 17.4.2004. He submits that the petitioner filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. alongwith delay condonation application on 28.5.2004, but the trial Court as well as revision Court illegally without appreciating correct facts on record has misconstrued the power of attorney in recording a finding tha
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the SPA holder had the authority to prosecute the petitioners as directors of the company under section 138 N.I. Act, and the Ld. MM had juris....
The Special Power of Attorney holder has authority to implead directors in corporate liability cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, affirming the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with....
Point of Law : There is no specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint
The court affirmed the right to present necessary evidence for just adjudication, overturning previous dismissals of critical authorization documents.
The main legal point established is that under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the court may allow the parties to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such ter....
The court affirmed the right to file an application under Section 142 post-remand, emphasizing the importance of justifying delays in filing complaints under the N.I. Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
