https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109590 Relief under Order 37, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires more than an explanation for default; the applicant must also show special circumstances and disclose facts amounting to a substantial defence or a basis for leave to defend. The Delhi HC found no pleaded defence, no sufficient cause for non-appearance, and knowledge of the decree well before execution, so the request to recall the decree failed. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to render the decree a nullity; it regulates leave in liquidation matters but does not invalidate an already passed decree. The applications were dismissed and the decree left undisturbed with costs. en-us Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:31:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109590 Relief under Order 37, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires more than an explanation for default; the applicant must also show special circumstances and disclose facts amounting to a substantial defence or a basis for leave to defend. The Delhi HC found no pleaded defence, no sufficient cause for non-appearance, and knowledge of the decree well before execution, so the request to recall the decree failed. Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held not to render the decree a nullity; it regulates leave in liquidation matters but does not invalidate an already passed decree. The applications were dismissed and the decree left undisturbed with costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109590