IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010

Save this PDF as:
Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay Saroya, Adv. versus SAIBA SURI Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Adv.... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) IA 7213/2011 (O.37 R.3(5) CPC) This is a suit filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil procedure for recovery of Rs.39,40,351/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant having approached it for grant of a housing loan, it sanctioned a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as loan to the defendant for purchase of a property located at 1003, 10th floor, Building 15, Unitech Horizon, Plot No.6, Sector Alistonia, Greater Noida, under its Individual Loan Scheme. The loan was paid for 240 months with interest at variable rate of 8% per annum, which at present stands at 10.5%. The plaintiff disbursed a sum of Rs.32 lakhs to the defendant who executed a promissory note dated 21st February, 2006 for the said sum in favour of the plaintiff. Under clause 2.6 of the Loan Agreement, the defendant agreed to pay EMI/Pre EMI every month. As per clause 2.7(b) of the Loan Agreement, the defendant also agreed to pay additional interest as per rules of the plaintiff, in case of delay/default in making the repayment of the loan. An additional sum of Rs.2,22,837/- was disbursed to the defendant on 5th January, 2008, thereby raising the total disbursed amount. The loan was re-payable in EMIs of Rs.34,114/-. The

2 defendant made last payment on 14th April, 2009 and according to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.33,21,537/- is still due and outstanding towards principal sum besides Rs.5,45,001/- towards EMI outstandings, Rs.72,403/- towards additional interest and Rs.1,410/- towards incidental charges. 2. In her application for leave to contest, the defendant has taken a preliminary objection that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit since the agreement was executed at Gurgaon, the property got financed by the defendant is situated in Greater Noida and the defendant is residing in Chandigarh. On merits, the defendant has admitted having taken the loan from the plaintiff and executing the Loan Agreement in its favour. This is also the case of the defendant in the application that the plaintiff was required to monitor the progress of construction of the property financed by it and carry out periodical inspections in this regard. According to the defendant, the builder Unitech Limited did not carry out construction within the stipulated time and on visiting the site, she found that the work was at a very preliminary stage, running at a very slow pace, and in no likelihood to have completed in 3-4 years. It is also alleged that the material being used for construction was sub-standard, inferior and of poor quality. It appears from the application that the defendant applied to Unitech for refund of the amount paid to it but, that amount was not refunded. The defendant has also filed a complaint under Consumer Protection Act against Unitech and the plaintiff, which is stated to be pending. The learned counsel for the defendant states that the prayer made by the defendant to the Consumer Forum is for a direction to refund the amount paid by her directly to the plaintiff. The defendant is also seeking to file a counter-claim of Rs.50 lakhs against the plaintiff on the ground that it had disbursed the loan in connivance with the Builder without keeping prior check with the project and without looking progress of the project. 3. In M/s Mechalec Engineers and Manufactures v. M/s Basic Equipment Corporation (1977) 1 SCR 1060, the Supreme Court set out the following principles:- (a) If the Defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the Defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

3 (c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shows such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the Defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the Defendant is not entitled to leave to defend (e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the Plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the Defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the Defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence. 4. As regards territorial jurisdiction, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that since no cause of action arose in the jurisdiction of this Court, and the defendant is not residing in Delhi, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. A bare perusal of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that the provisions contained in the said Section apply subject to limitations stipulated in Sections 14 to 19 of the Code. The provisions of Section 16 to 19 do not apply to the present case and, therefore, it is Section 20 of the Code which governs the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as far as the present suit is concerned. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent, it is relevant, provides that a suit shall be instituted in a Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Another alternative jurisdiction is the place where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. If the plaintiff is able to show that the defendant is either residing or working for gain in Delhi, Delhi Courts would certainly have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit, even if no cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Though the defendant has alleged that she is residing in Chandigarh, a perusal of the affidavit filed by her along with the appearance would show that in fact that she is residing at B-101, Second Floor, Neeti Bagh, New

4 Delhi. This exactly is the residential address given by her in the affidavit. A perusal of the summons issued by the Court which was served upon the defendant would show that when the process server went to D-253, Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi, which is the address given in the suit, the person residing there informed the process server that the defendant had shifted to B-101, Second Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. The report of the process server and the affidavit filed by the defendant along with her appearance clearly shows that at the time of filing of this suit, the defendant was residing at B-101, 2nd Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plea that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. 6. A perusal of the original Loan Agreement executed by the defendant with the plaintiff would show that the parties, inter alia, agreed as under:- 2.4 Details of Disbursement The loan shall be disbursed in one lumpsum or in suitable instalments to be decided by HDFC with reference to the need or progress of construction (which decision shall be final and binding on the borrower). The borrower hereby acknowledge the receipt of the loan disbursed as indicated in the Receipt hereinbelow. 2.6 Amortisation (a) Subject to Article 2.2 the borrower will amortise the loan as stipulated in the Schedule subject however that in the event of delay or advancement of disbursement for any reason whatsoever, the date of commencement of EMI shall be the first of the month following the month in which the disbursement of the loan will have been completed and consequently the due date of payment of the first EMI in such case will be the 5th day of the month following such month. (b) In addition to (a) above, the borrower shall pay to HDFC PEMII every month, if applicable. (e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, having regard to the AIR for the time being, HDFC shall be entitled to increase the EMI amount suitably if: (i) the said EMI would lead to negative amortisation (i.e. EMI not being adequate to cover interest in full), and/or (ii) the principal component contained in the EMI is inadequate to amortise the loan within such period as determined by HDFC. The borrower shall be required to pay such increased EMI amount and the number thereof as decided by HDFC and intimated to the borrower by HDFC.

5 (f) HDFC may vary its retail prime lending rate from time to time in such manner including as to the loan amounts as HDFC may deem fit in its own discretion. 2.7 Delay in payment of EMI etc. (a) No notice, reminder or intimation will be given to the borrower regarding his obligation to pay the EMI or PEMI regularly on due date. It shall be entirely responsibility to ensure prompt and regular payment of EMI or PEMI. (b) The delay in payment of EMI or PEMI shall render the borrower liable to pay additional interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum or at such higher rate as per the rules of HDFC in that behalf as in force from time to time. In such event, the borrower shall also be liable to pay incidental charges and costs to HDFC. 5.1 Particular Affirmative Covenants (a) Utilisation of loan: The borrower shall utilize the entire loan for the purchase/construction of the property as indicated by him in his loan application and for no other purpose whatsoever. 5.3 HDFC s Right to Inspect The borrower agrees that HDFC or any person authorized by it shall have free access to the property for the purpose of inspection/supervising and inspecting the progress of construction and the accounts of construction to ensure proper utilization of the loan. The borrower further agrees that HDFC shall have free access to the property for the purpose of inspection at any time during the pendency of loan. 7. Clause 5.1(a) would show that it required the borrower, i.e., the defendant to utilize the loan only for purchase/construction of the property indicated in the loan application and he was prohibited from using the same for any other purpose. This clause, therefore, has no applicability to the present case. Clause 5.3 give a right to the plaintiff to have free access to the property for the purpose of inspection/supervising and inspecting the progress of construction and the accounts of construction to ensure proper utilization of the loan. This clause further stipulates that the borrower agrees to the plaintiff having free access to the property for the purpose of inspection at any time during the subsistence of the loan. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, as would be evident from the second part of clause 5.3, it applies only to a case where an individual carries construction after taking loan from the plaintiff and does not apply to a case where the construction is carried out by a third party such as Unitech in this case. However, assuming for the sake of arguments, that in exercise of the powers

6 conferred upon it by clause 5.3 of the Agreement, the plaintiff could have accessed the property which Unitech was to construct and inspect the construction going on there, that by itself does not mean that the plaintiff could not have released the loan to Unitech Limited without first ensuring adequate progress of the construction. Admittedly, the Loan Agreement, in this case, was executed on 21st February, 2006 and even a pronote of Rs.32 lakhs was executed by the defendant on the same date. A perusal of para 7 of the plaint indicates that the amount of Rs.32 lakhs was disbursed to the defendant on 21st February, 2006 whereas, a sum of Rs.2,22,837/- was disbursed on 5th January, 2008, as stated in para 8 of the plaint. Since there was no obligation under the Loan Agreement, on the plaintiff to carry out inspection and ensure progress of the work before disbursing the loan amount, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had committed breach of its contractual obligations with the defendant. Mere right to inspect the property, assuming such a right existed in respect of the project in which booking was made by the defendant with Unitech Limited, did not cast an obligation upon the plaintiff to monitor the progress of the construction and make disbursal on the basis of the progress achieved by the builder in completing the construction of the project. A perusal of the Loan Agreement would show that as far as the plaintiff was concerned, it had disbursed the loan amount of Rs.32 lakhs to the defendant though the amount must have been paid by way of cheque/pay order in the name of Unitech Limited. The defendant under the Agreement between the parties agreed to pay not only pre-emis but also the equated monthly instalment as worked out by the plaintiff. A perusal of the Statement of Account on page19 indicates that the pre-emis amount was Rs.3,97,406/- which had been paid by the defendant by 30th April, A perusal of the statement at page 20 would show that the defendant also paid EMIs amounting to Rs.4,37,991/- between 30th June, 2008 to 14th April, This clearly shows that the defendant admitted his liability to pay the pre-emis as well as the EMIs and that is why he made the aforesaid payment. This is not the case of the defendant that any payment made by her to the plaintiff has not been credited in her account. Therefore, it appears to me that the defendant has no worthwhile defence as far as the merits of the case are concerned. As regards additional interest, clause 2.7 clearly obliges the defendant to pay additional interest in case there was delay in payment of EMIs or pre- EMIs. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover additional interest from the defendant since there is a delay in payment of EMIs.

7 8. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the decision of this Court in National Horticulture Board vs. M/s. Flora Continental Ltd. & Ors., 108 (2003) DLT 228. A perusal of the aforesaid case would show that the facts in that case were altogether different. In that case, besides the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the defendant had also raised the plea of limitation. On merits also, they had sought to raise a counter-claim against the plaintiff. However, in the case before this Court, I have not found any merit as far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned and no issue of limitation is involved in this case. On merits also, the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by Loan Agreement dated 21st February, 2006 which is an admitted document and I have not been able to find any breach of any of those obligations on the part of the plaintiff. 9. The next plea taken in the application is that the suit is barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act Section 18 of the aforesaid Act bars jurisdiction of any Court or authority except the Supreme Court and High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to matters specified in Section 17. Section 17(i) of the said Act provides that a Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. The expression bank has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, whereas the expression financial institution has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Act, which read as under:- 2(d) bank means (i) banking company; (ii) a corresponding new bank; (iii) State Bank of India; (iv) a subsidiary bank; or (v) a Regional Rural Bank 2(h) financial institution means (i) a public financial institution within the meaning of Section 4A of Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); the (ii) such other institution as the Central Government may, having regard to its business activity and the area of its operation in India by notification, specify.

8 As stipulated in Section 2(e) of the said Act, the expression banking company shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (c) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides that banking company means which transacts the business of the banking in India. Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act defines banking to mean the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. There is no averment in the application that the plaintiff transacts business of banking in India in terms of Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act and is a banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the said Act. As per Section 2 (f) of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the expression corresponding new bank shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in clause (da) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, The said provision defines corresponding new bank to mean a corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, Admittedly, the plaintiff is not a corresponding new bank within the meaning of Section 5(da) of the Banking Regulation Act. The expression subsidiary bank has the same meaning which is assigned to it in (k) of Section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959 and admittedly the plaintiff is not a subsidiary bank of State Bank of India. The plaintiff is also not a Regional Rural Bank which expression has been defined to mean a Regional Rural Bank established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the plaintiff is not a bank within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Recovery of Debts due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, The plaintiff is certainly not a Public Financial Institution within the meaning of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 which provides that Financial Institutions specified therein shall be regarded as Public financial institutions. The plaintiff is also not a Securitization Company Or Reconstruction Company in terms of Section 2(h)(i)(a) of Recovery of Debts due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, This is also not a case of the defendant that the plaintiff has been notified by the Central Government to be a Financial Institution within the meaning of the said Act. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 17 & 18 of Recovery of Debts due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 do not apply to the plaintiff.

9 10. The third plea taken in the application is that the suit is barred by Section 34 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, The aforesaid provision provides that no civil court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered by or under the said Act to determine. Though the plaintiff is a Financial Institution within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the provisions of Section 34 of the said Act do not apply to the present suit for the simple reason that Debt Recovery Tribunal is not empowered to entertain a civil suit by the plaintiff for recovery of money from the defendant and no action has been taken or is proposed to be taken by the plaintiff pursuant to the powers conferred upon financial institutions by the said Act. Had the plaintiff sought to recover the amount due to it by enforcement of a security, in terms of the power conferred upon it by the said Act only then the jurisdiction of the civil court would have been barred in respect of any such action. 11. Since the defence raised by the defendant is sham and illusionary, she is not entitled to any defence, but, in view of clause (e) of the above-referred guidelines, I grant leave to the defendant to contest this suit subject to the condition that she would file either an FDR or a bank guarantee of Rs.35,92,000/- within eight weeks from today. The learned counsel for the defendant states that the defendant undertakes to give bank guarantee or FDR of Rs. 35,92,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned Joint Registrar, within eight weeks from today. 12. In view of this undertaking, the defendant is granted leave to contest the suit subject to her furnishing a bank guarantee or an FDR of Rs.35,92,000/- within eight weeks from today. If neither bank guarantee nor FDR is furnished within the aforesaid time, this application shall stand dismissed without any further orders and the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment forthwith. The observations being prima facie made in order to decide this application would not affect the decision of this suit on merits. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application being devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. IA 2016/2012(O.7 R.11 CPC) The first contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that since this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the present

10 suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is by now well settled proposition of law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is to see only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. Neither written statement nor the documents filed by the defendant can be considered at this stage. The plaintiff has clearly alleged in the plaint that the defendant was residing in Delhi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose such facts and as would give territorial jurisdiction to this Court to try the present suit. In any case, as noted earlier, while deciding IA 7213/2011, the defendant herself has given her residential address at B-101, Second Floor, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi in her affidavit filed along with the appearance. The plea is, therefore, devoid of any merit, and is rejected. The application is dismissed. CS(OS) 1785/2010 Subject to furnishing of bank guarantee and FDR in terms of the order, written statement be filed within eight weeks from today and replication would be filed within two weeks thereafter. List before Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 21st February, List before the Court for framing of issues on 26th March, DECEMBER 3, 2012 Sd/- V.K. JAIN, J

11

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1008/2013 KRISHAN LAL ARORA Through: Versus Date of Pronouncement: August 14, 2015... Plaintiff Dr. N. K. Khetarpal, Adv. GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS...

More information

I.A. No /2012 (u/order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC)

I.A. No /2012 (u/order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 14953/2012 (O.XXXVII R.3(5) CPC) in CS(OS) 2219/2011 Reserved on: 22nd October, 2013 Decided on: 1st November, 2013 T

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : 25th May, 2006 Date of decision : July 27th, 2006 RFA No. 139/2005 Sh. Ajay Kumar Grover... Appellant through

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + I.A. Nos /2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + I.A. Nos /2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + I.A. Nos. 14472/2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002 % Judgment reserved on : April 29, 2009 Judgment pronounced on : 1 st July, 2009 NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD...

More information

THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004

THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 ~ THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 # NO. 30 OF 2004 $ [29th December, 2004.] + An Act to amend the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Reserve: January 14, 2008 Date of Order: January 21, 2009 CS(OS) No.2582/2008 and IA No.425/2009 M/S DRISHTICON PROPERTIES

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA

More information

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 .. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Date of Decision: CRL.A of 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Date of Decision: CRL.A of 2013. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Date of Decision: 06.03.2014 CRL.A. 1011 of 2013 S.K. JAIN... Appellant Mr. Ajay K. Chopra, Adv. versus VIJAY KALRA... Respondent

More information

THE HINDUSTAN TRACTORS LIMITED (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1978 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE HINDUSTAN TRACTORS LIMITED (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1978 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE HINDUSTAN TRACTORS LIMITED (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1978 SECTIONS 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II ACQUISITION

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2248/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2248/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment delivered on: 25.07.2012 CS(OS) 2248/2011 MAHESH CHANDER MALIK... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Anshuj Dhingra and Mr. Anubhav

More information

THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012

THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012 9 Bill No. 122-F of 2011 THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST AND RECOVERY OF DEBTS LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2012 (AS PASSED BY THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT LOK SABHA ON 10TH DECEMBER, 2012 RAJYA SABHA ON 20TH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. CS(OS)No.1307/2006. Date of decision:16th January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS)No.1307/2006 Date of decision:16th January, 2009 SMT. TARAN JEET KAUR... Through: Plaintiff Mr. Rajeev Awasthi, Advocate

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT MUKESH JAIN & ANR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT MUKESH JAIN & ANR. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 STATE BANK OF PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS MUKESH JAIN & ANR. RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE,

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA Nos.1726/07, 1727/07 and CS (OS) No. 1196/2006 Date of decision : December 20, 2007 M/S ARINITS SALES PVT. LTD.... PLAINTIFF

More information

THE INCHEK TYRES LIMITED AND NATIONAL RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LIMITED (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1984 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE INCHEK TYRES LIMITED AND NATIONAL RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LIMITED (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1984 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE INCHEK TYRES LIMITED AND NATIONAL RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LIMITED (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1984 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SECTIONS 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER

More information

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 798/2010 Date of Decision: 18 th January, 2016 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek K. Gola and Mr. C K Gola, Adv.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 7504 of 2013 M/s Narayani Fuels Private Limited through its Director, Dhanbad Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab National Bank through its Chairman, New

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.

More information

THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER

More information

Downloaded From

Downloaded From CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II Establishment of tribunal and appellate tribunal 3. Establishment of Tribunal. 4. Composition of Tribunal.

More information

THE STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA (REPEAL) AND THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) AMENDMENT BILL, 2009

THE STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA (REPEAL) AND THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) AMENDMENT BILL, 2009 1 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 113 of 2009 THE STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA (REPEAL) AND THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS) AMENDMENT BILL, 2009 5 A BILL to repeal the State Bank of Saurashtra

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : DATE OF DECISION:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : DATE OF DECISION: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : 27-02-2007 DATE OF DECISION: 05-03-2007 TRISTAR CONSULTANTS... Petitioner through: Mr.M.S.Ganesh,

More information

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department)

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department) MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 22nd December, 1980/Pausa 1, 1902 (Saka) The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the

More information

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS

DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS DRAFT RULES UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 CHAPTER XV COMPROMISES, ARRANGEMENT AND AMALGAMATIONS 15.1 Application for order of a meeting (1) An application along with a Notice of Admission supported by an affidavit

More information

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the

11. To give effect to this guarantee, the IRBI may act as though the guarantors were the principal debtor to the IRBI. 6. The appellant sanctioned the Hon'ble Judges: Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ. Dalveer Bhandari, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 4613 of 2000 Decided On: 18.08.2009 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. Vs.

More information

M/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD.

M/S. SAIPEM TRIUNE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Plaintiff. - versus - INDIAN OIL PETRONAS PVT. LTD. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment Reserved on: January 07, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: January 10, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2340/2008 & I.A. No.

More information

! Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Batra, Mr. Aditya Kumar and Mr. Jitender Anand, Advs. Versus

! Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Batra, Mr. Aditya Kumar and Mr. Jitender Anand, Advs. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C.5138/2006 Reserved on: 29 th October, 2009 % Date of Decision: 27th November, 2009 # RANJIT RAJ & ORS.... Petitioner! Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr.

More information

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC MONEYS (RECOVERY OF DUES) ACT, 1979

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC MONEYS (RECOVERY OF DUES) ACT, 1979 THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC MONEYS (RECOVERY OF DUES) ACT, 1979 Statement of Object and Reasons Sections: 1. Short title and commencement 2. Definitions ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 3. Recovery of certain dues as

More information

FORM OF MORTGAGE DEED TO BE EXECUTED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS FREEHOLD

FORM OF MORTGAGE DEED TO BE EXECUTED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS FREEHOLD FORM OF MORTGAGE DEED TO BE EXECUTED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS FREEHOLD The indenture made this day of 200 (Two thousand ) between Shri/Smt Son/Daughter/Wife of Shri/Smt at present employed as in the Ministry/Office

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate

More information

Bare Acts & Rules. Hello Good People! Free Downloadable Formats. LaLas

Bare Acts & Rules. Hello Good People! Free Downloadable Formats. LaLas Bare Acts & Rules Free Downloadable Formats Hello Good People! LaLas ACT 1 OF 2007 THE KERALA FARMERS' DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION ACT, 2006 An Act to provide relief to those farmers who are in distress due

More information

26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 22 nd August, 2017 J U D G M E N T

26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 22 nd August, 2017 J U D G M E N T 26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 383/2017 UNION OF INDIA... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Mr. Anshuamn Upadhyay, Ms.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION. CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI COMPANY JURISDICTION CCP (Co.) No. 8 of 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 215 OF 2005 Reserved on: 26-11-2010 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2011 M/s Sanjay Cold Storage..Petitioner

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5517 OF 2007 Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao &

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on 06.07.2012 Judgment delivered on 09.07.2012 RFA 669/2003 M/S FIITJEE LTD. AND ANR. Appellants Versus DR. KANWAL

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. MC No.867/2012 & Crl.MAs /2012 Date of Decision:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. MC No.867/2012 & Crl.MAs /2012 Date of Decision: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. MC No.867/2012 & Crl.MAs 3032-33/2012 Date of Decision: 09.04.2012 PAAM PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Petitioner Through:

More information

JOINT VENTURE/SHARE HOLDERS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT is executed at [Name of city ] on the day of [Date, month and year ]

JOINT VENTURE/SHARE HOLDERS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT is executed at [Name of city ] on the day of [Date, month and year ] JOINT VENTURE/SHARE HOLDERS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is executed at [Name of city ] on the day of [Date, month and year ] BETWEEN: M/S. ABC PRIVATE LIMITED. (herein after referred to as the "ABC", which

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3415 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35553 OF 2016) DR. MANOHAR GANAPATHI RAVANKAR...APPELLANT Versus H. GURUNANDA

More information

Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions

Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions Agreement to UOB Banker s Guarantee Terms and Conditions In consideration of United Overseas Bank Limited (the Bank ) agreeing at the Applicant s request to issue the Banker s Guarantee, the Applicant

More information

Winding up. Tribunal. Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code)

Winding up. Tribunal. Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) Winding up Tribunal (the provision relating to the inability to pay debts now covered by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) Voluntary (Now governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) JURISDICTION:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016 % 24 th November, 2017 BAJAJ RESOURCES LIMITED & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Piyush Kumar and Mr. Vardaan Anand,

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (Arising out of Order dated 10 th October, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in C.P.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS (OS) No.284/2012 Date of order: 02.03.2012 M/S ASHWANI PAN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Through: None. Plaintiff Versus M/S KRISHNA

More information

THE SECURITIES LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013

THE SECURITIES LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 111 of 2013 THE SECURITIES LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013 A BILL further to amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, the Securities Contracts (Regulation)

More information

ACTS OF SRI LANKA. Debt Recovery (Special Provision) (Amendment) Act No 9 of 1994

ACTS OF SRI LANKA. Debt Recovery (Special Provision) (Amendment) Act No 9 of 1994 ACTS OF SRI LANKA Debt Recovery (Special Provision) (Amendment) Act No 9 of 1994 AN ACT TO AMEND THE DEBT REVOVERY (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, NO. 2 of 1990 BE it enacted by the Parliament of the Democratic

More information

SCOPE Forum of Conciliation & Arbitration (SFCA) (As amended upto 2017)

SCOPE Forum of Conciliation & Arbitration (SFCA) (As amended upto 2017) SCOPE Forum of Conciliation & Arbitration (SFCA) (As amended upto 2017) OBJECT The main object of SCOPE Forum of Conciliation and Arbitration (ADR) is to serve in settling disputes between Public Sector

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,

More information

S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates. Versus

S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 11th April, 2013. CS(OS) 281/2010 & I.A. No.2055/2010 (u/o 39 R-1 & 2 CPC) S.M.V. AGENCIES PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on: Decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO.No.301/2010 Reserved on:09.02.2011 Decided on: 18.02.2011 WOLLAQUE VENTILATION & CONDITIONING PVT LTD. Appellant Through: Mr.

More information

Through : Mr.Atul Bhuchhar, Advocate with Mr.Manoj Nagar, Advocate. I.A.No.2351/2013 (u/s 45 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996)

Through : Mr.Atul Bhuchhar, Advocate with Mr.Manoj Nagar, Advocate. I.A.No.2351/2013 (u/s 45 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 RESERVED ON : 11th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 3rd DECEMBER, 2014 CS(OS) 1700/2010 VIRTUAL STUDIO PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through : Mr.Atul

More information

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,

THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002 1 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 read with subsections (4), (10) and (12) of section

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.178/2008. Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.178/2008. Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO (OS) No.178/2008 Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008 Judgment pronounced on : 9th January, 2009 Ms. Jyotika Kumar...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Reserved on: % Date of Decision: WP(C) No.7084 of 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Reserved on: % Date of Decision: WP(C) No.7084 of 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.11.2013 % Date of Decision: 28.11.2013 + WP(C) No.7084 of 2010 PARAS NATURAL SPRING WATER PVT. LTD. Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Adv.... Petitioner

More information

CHAPTER 16. Legal Practitioners. Part A THE FILING OF POWERS OF ATTORNEY BY PLEADERS IN SUBORDINATE COURTS

CHAPTER 16. Legal Practitioners. Part A THE FILING OF POWERS OF ATTORNEY BY PLEADERS IN SUBORDINATE COURTS Ch. 16 Part A] CHAPTER 16 Legal Practitioners Part A THE FILING OF POWERS OF ATTORNEY BY PLEADERS IN SUBORDINATE COURTS 1. Pleadings and acting by pleaders Whereas by Order III, Rule 4, of the Code of

More information

DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CHAPTER XX COMPANIES (WINDING UP) RULES 2013 Ministry of Corporate Affairs Notification New Delhi Dated GSR No..:- In exercise of the powers conferred by section

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 12210/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 12210/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Date of Decision: 16.01.2012 W.P.(C) 12210/2009 NORTHERN ZONE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD...

More information

M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017

M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017 Delhi High Court M/S. Iritech Inc vs The Controller Of Patents on 20 April, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 20th April, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7850/2014 M/S. IRITECH INC

More information

RFA. No. 38/ Versus- PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY. : Mr. GN SAhewalla, Sr.Adv.Ms. J Barua Adv. Adv. RFA No.18 of 2008 Page 1 of 13

RFA. No. 38/ Versus- PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY. : Mr. GN SAhewalla, Sr.Adv.Ms. J Barua Adv. Adv. RFA No.18 of 2008 Page 1 of 13 Smti Tanuja Baruah Prof.of M/S Borsons Asia Borbheta Bongali Gaon PO Monkholi PS Bordubi Dist-Tinsukia, IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) RFA.

More information

order imposes the following restrictions on the petitioner:-

order imposes the following restrictions on the petitioner:- THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2010 + WP(C) 14152/2009 & CM 16314/2009 VINAY WIRES AND POLY PRODUCTS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY H P KANODIA... Petitioner

More information

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015 AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 11 MAY, Bill No. 84-C of THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I CLAUSES PRELIMINARY 1. Short title,

More information

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7 $~3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 49/2017 & IA No.885/2017 (U/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). VEEKESY RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Mr. Sridharan R. Ram

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment: W.P.(C) 8432/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment: W.P.(C) 8432/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Date of Judgment:20.3.2013 W.P.(C) 8432/2011 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK... Petitioner Through: Mr.Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashim

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Sections 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Ordinance (II) 2002 W.P.(C) 191/2008

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah MANU/DE/0153/2012 Equivalent Citation: 2012(127)DRJ743, 2012(49)PTC440(Del) Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Relied On IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IA No. 17230/2011 & IA No. 17646/2011

More information

1. Section 83 was Substituted for the original by Guj. 23 of 1982, s. 19.

1. Section 83 was Substituted for the original by Guj. 23 of 1982, s. 19. CHAPTER VIII. AUDIT, INQUIRY, INSPECTOR AND SUPERVISION. 84. (1) the Registrar shall audit, or cause to be audited by a person possessing prescribed qualifications and authorised by the Registrar by general

More information

TENDERER S COPY TENDER NO.: DLI/SALAL/RUNN/08_047 DT S P E C I F I C A T I O N FOR

TENDERER S COPY TENDER NO.: DLI/SALAL/RUNN/08_047 DT S P E C I F I C A T I O N FOR TENDERER S COPY TENDER NO.: DLI/SALAL/RUNN/08_047 DT.17.06.08 T E N D E R S P E C I F I C A T I O N FOR REFURBISHMENT OF 115 MW BHEL MAKE RUNNERS-2NOS OF SALAL HEP, NHPC. PART I TECHNICAL BID Bharat Heavy

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015 Madhusudan Mandal, Residing at 35E Mahanirban Road, Ground Floor, Post Office- Gariahat, Kolkata-700029,

More information

ii) The respondent did not furnish a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs crores and also did not pay the service tax payable on the said amount

ii) The respondent did not furnish a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs crores and also did not pay the service tax payable on the said amount IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos.... of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11964-11965 of 2009) Decided On: 06.08.2009 ECE Industries Limited Vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers P. Ltd. and Anr.

More information

THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES EFFICIENCY, DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES EFFICIENCY, DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1 of 9 17/03/2011 13:53 THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES EFFICIENCY, DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 2006 (Act XII of 2006) C O N T E N T S SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. 2. Definitions.

More information

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 213 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 213 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Arising out of Order dated 18 th September, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai

More information

THE SICK TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1974 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE SICK TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1974 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE SICK TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1974 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SECTIONS 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHTS OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Date of Judgment : R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No /2006 (for stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment : 27.4.2011 R.S.A.No. 459/2006 & CM No. 17688/2006 (for stay) SH. MOHD. TAJ Through:..Appellant Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,

More information

CHAPTER 19:05 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II

CHAPTER 19:05 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II LAWS OF GUYANA Public Corporations 3 CHAPTER 19:05 PUBLIC CORPORATIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II NEW PUBLIC CORPORATIONS 3. Establishment

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos OF 2015 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1269-1270 OF 2019 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Nos. 21402-21403 OF 2015 PYARELAL... APPELLANT Versus SHUBHENDRA

More information

CHAPTER 359 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION. 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation.

CHAPTER 359 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION. 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. CHAPTER 359 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II CONSOLIDATED FUND 3. Functions of the Minister. 4. Consolidated

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 132/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Md. Alauddin, S/o Late Nazar Ali, 2. Mrs. Phulmati W/o Alauddin Both are resident of- Village:-

More information

THE INTER-STATE MIGRANT WORKMEN (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, (No. 30 of 1979)

THE INTER-STATE MIGRANT WORKMEN (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, (No. 30 of 1979) THE INTER-STATE MIGRANT WORKMEN (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, 1979 (No. 30 of 1979) [11 th June, 1979] An Act to regulate the employment of inter-state migrant workmen and to

More information

THE RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008

THE RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008 TO BE INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 19 of 2008 24 of 1989. THE RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2008 A BILL further to amend the Railways Act,1989. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-ninth Year of the

More information

LAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES)ACT

LAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES)ACT LAWS OF KENYA LAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES)ACT CHAPTER 287 Revised Edition 2012 [1970] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev.

More information

(i) THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS BILL, 2011 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title, extent, application and commencement.

(i) THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS BILL, 2011 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title, extent, application and commencement. (i) CLAUSES THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS BILL, 11 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent, application and commencement. PART II LOKPAL FOR THE UNION CHAPTER I AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA

More information

The Kerala Chitties Act, 1975

The Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 The Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 Act 23 of 1975 Keyword(s): Approved Bank, Chitty, Chitty Amount, Discount, Drawing, Foreman, Non- Prized, Prize-Amount, Special Resolution, Subscriber, Ticket, Variola, Veethapalisa

More information

TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. GENERAL CONDITION OF TENDER GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

TERMS AND CONDITIONS I. GENERAL CONDITION OF TENDER GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT ANNEXURE B SCOPE OF WORK AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PROVIDING MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES ON CONTRACT AT BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (BPCL), PIYALA INSTALLATION The successful tenderer shall be Providing

More information

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY. This special power of attorney is executed on the day of Two thousand

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY. This special power of attorney is executed on the day of Two thousand SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY This special power of attorney is executed on the day of Two thousand By [Full Name and full residential and office address of NRI Borrower(s) A non Resident Indian, presently

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

(ii) CLAUSES 19. Appeal to High Court. 20. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases. CHAPTER VI OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS 21. Punishment for contravent

(ii) CLAUSES 19. Appeal to High Court. 20. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases. CHAPTER VI OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS 21. Punishment for contravent AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 85 of 2018 THE BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CLAUSES 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions.

More information