AI Overview...
-
Ratnakar D. Patade Case - The case initially held that the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are mandatory in nature, emphasizing strict compliance. The judgment in this case (AIR 1996 Bom 69, 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 206) clarified that non-compliance with court orders under this rule could lead to consequences, and failure to attend pursuant to a recall order cannot be overlooked Augustinho C. Braganza VS Sebastiao C. Braganza - Bombay, Asha Madhusudan Joshi VS Ashok H. Bhide & others - Bombay, Ramavatar Surajmal Modi VS Mulchand Surajmal Modi - Bombay, Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Limited Company VS Nilconta G. Amonkar - Bombay.
-
Overruling and Clarification - The decision in Ratnakar D. Patade was subsequently overruled by a division bench in the case of Ramavatar Surajmal Modi, indicating a shift or clarification in legal interpretation. The earlier view that Rule 11 is mandatory was reaffirmed but also recognized that courts need to consider sub-rule (2) of Rule 11, which was not explicitly addressed in the original judgment Augustinho C. Braganza VS Sebastiao C. Braganza - Bombay.
-
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 - The judgments in Ratnakar D. Patade and Smt. Asha M. Joshi did not sufficiently consider the impact of sub-rule (2), which can influence the discretion of courts regarding the consequences of non-compliance. The Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of this sub-rule in subsequent rulings (e.g., M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co.), emphasizing that the provisions are not purely mandatory but also have a discretionary aspect Ramavatar Surajmal Modi VS Mulchand Surajmal Modi - Bombay, Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Limited Company VS Nilconta G. Amonkar - Bombay.
-
Main Insight - The original case established a strict view on Order 39, Rule 11, but subsequent judgments and the overruling suggest a more nuanced approach, considering both the mandatory language and the discretionary elements introduced by sub-rule (2). Courts now recognize that non-compliance alone may not always lead to automatic consequences, especially if justified or excused Augustinho C. Braganza VS Sebastiao C. Braganza - Bombay, Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka & others VS Harish Balkrushna Latane & others - Bombay.
Conclusion: The Ratnakar D. Patade case was pivotal in affirming the mandatory nature of Order 39, Rule 11 of CPC but has been refined through subsequent rulings and overruling, acknowledging the significance of sub-rule (2) and the court's discretion in enforcing consequences for non-compliance.
Search Results for "Ratnakar d Patade"
2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 1521 • India - Bombay
C.V.BHADANG
The case of Ratnakar D. Patade (supra) has been since overruled by the division bench of this Court, in the case of Ramavatar Surajmal Modi (supra). ... ... (v) Ratnakar D. Patade Vs. Smita Pandurang Dalvi & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 Bom 69. ... He submits that failure to attend in pursuance of an Order of recall cannot lead to the consequences under Order 39, Rule 11 of CPC.
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 1295 • India - Supreme Court
K.VENKATASWAMI, M.M.PUNCHHI
2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 968 • India - Bombay
D.D.SINHA
My view is fortified by the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Ratnakar D. Patade v. Smita Pandurang Dalvi and others)1, 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 206.
2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 76 • India - Bombay
R.M.LODHA, ANOOP V.MOHTA
Unfortunately, neither in Ratnakar D. Patade nor in Smt. Asha M. Joshi, the learned Judges adverted to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 and its effect. The Supreme Court in (M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. ... In (Ratnakar D. Patade v. Smita Pandurang Dalvi others)1, 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 206 a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory in nature. ... The view taken by the two learned Single Judges in Ratnakar#HL_....
2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 133 • India - Bombay
C.K.THAKKER, S.RADHAKRISHNAN
1995 0 Supreme(Bom) 81 • India - Bombay
S.M.JHUNJHUNUWALA
2001 0 Supreme(Bom) 1050 • India - Bombay
V.C.DAGA
2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 297 • India - Bombay
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
State of Rajasthan others)5, reported in A.I.R. 1969 Rajasthan 41, (Ratnakar D. Patade v. Smita Pandurang Dalvi others)6, reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 206 , (Maharashtra Co-operative Courts Bar Association, Bombay others v. ... The decision in Ratnakar Patade's case is on the point that the provision of law in Order 39, Rule 11 of C.P.C., is mandatory in nature and not discretionary.
2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 1986 • India - Bombay
F.M.REIS
Unfortunately, neither in Ratnakar D. Patade nor in Smt. Asha M. Joshi, the learned Judges adverted to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 and its effect. The Supreme Court in M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v.
2001 0 Supreme(Bom) 1059 • India - Bombay
V.C.DAGA
The learned Counsel for the respondent as a last straw also pressed into service the provisions of Order 39, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Ratnakar D. Patade v.
Filter by Legal Phrase
