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

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No /2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No /2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) CS(OS) No. 1831/2010 AND IA No /2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) 1832/2010 Reserved on 17th February, 2012 Decided on 8th May, 2012 TATA MOTORS LIMITED... Plaintiff Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. versus JSC VTB BANK LTD... Defendant Through : Mr. A.B. Dial, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Coram: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K. PATHAK, J. 1. By this order, I shall dispose of applications under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant in the above referred three matters, as the same are in similar facts, inasmuch as, question of law involved therein is also same. 2. Whether Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? is the question involved in the above matters.

2 3. Plaintiff has filed above suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC, for short) for recovery of the amounts mentioned therein, regarding unpaid Letters of Credit issued by JSC VTB Bank, Mantaznikov Street 2B, Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region, Russia (for short hereinafter referred to as Russian Bank ). 4. It is alleged that the plaintiff had supplied truck chassis units to a Joint-Stock Company, Cars And engines Of Ural, a body incorporated under the laws of Russia, having its registered office at 1, Avtomotornaya Street, Novouralsk, Sverdlovsk Region, Russia ( CJSC Amur, for short), pursuant to the three Agreements entered into between them. 5. Clause 3 of the Agreements reads as under:- Clause 3 payment conditions: 3.1 Payments for the SKD Kits of every consignment will be made by the buyer to the Seller by way of irrevocable and without recourse letter of credit open for the full value of pro-forma Invoice. 3.2 The terms and conditions of the letter of credit should be in accordance with ICC Unified Customs and Practices No. 500 for documentary credit (issued in 1993). 6. In terms of the Clause 3 of Agreements, payment was to be made by way of irrevocable letters of credit. Accordingly, at the instance of CJSC Amur, Russian Bank opened irrevocable letters of credit involved in the above suits. Standard Chartered Bank at Mumbai was the Advising Bank. Case of the plaintiff is that the letters of credit, on presentation, were returned unpaid on flimsy grounds, which need not to be reiterated here being irrelevant for the disposal of present applications. Despite service of legal notice amounts, involved in the Letters of Credit have not been paid, hence the suit. 7. From the facts narrated in the plaint, it is clear that no cause of action has arisen at New Delhi. It is not the case of plaintiff that any cause of action and for that matter part cause of action has arisen at New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff exported the truck chassis units to Russia, pursuant to the contracts entered into between the plaintiff and CJSC Amur, which is not a party to the suits. Letters of credit have been opened by the Russian Bank at Russia, on the instructions of CJSC Amur based in Russia. Letters of credit were presented by the

3 Advising Bank, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai on the Russian Bank, for payment. The sole ground, on which jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked, is that Russian Bank has a branch at New Delhi. Para 41 of the plaint deals with the territorial jurisdiction in the following manner:- 41. That this Hon ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit as the sole or the principal place of business of the defendant in India is at New Delhi and the defendant carries on business in India through its office in New Delhi. The defendant bank is also included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and is believed to be registered under Section 592 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is authorized to accept service at the address of its sole place of business (at the aforesaid address). Hence, this Hon ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the present suit. 8. Relevant it would be to quote with advantage Section 20 of CPC, which reads as under:- 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 9. Plaintiff has filed these suits at New Delhi taking aid of Section 20(a) read with explanation thereto, on the allegations that the Russian Bank has

4 sole place of business at New Delhi, which fact is evident from para 41 of the plaint. 10. Plaintiff has admitted that letters of credit are subject to Uniform Customs Practice for Documentary Credits (2007 Revision), I.C.C. publication ( UCP 600, for short ). In para 40 of the plaint, plaintiff has alleged that suit of the plaintiff is based on the written contract evidenced by the letters of credit incorporating UCP 600, duly acknowledged by the defendant. 11. Article 3 of the UCP 600, inter alia, provides that branches of a bank in different countries are considered to be separate banks; meaning thereby the defendant is an independent and separate bank and is not a branch of Russian bank. In United Commercial Bank vs. Bank of India & Ors (2) SCC 766, in the context of similar UCP, Apex Court held that General Provisions, Definitions and the Articles are to be applied to all documentary credit and binding upon all parties thereto unless expressly agreed". 12. Plaintiff has relied on the UCP 600 as it is the case of plaintiff itself that the Letters of credit were subject to terms of UCP 600. Thus, both the parties are bound by the terms of UCP 600. As the general provisions, definitions and articles as contained in UCP are binding upon all the parties thereto the plaintiff cannot be allowed to contend that the defendant is not an independent entity but is a branch of Russian bank. It is not a question of ouster of jurisdiction of a court by Article 3 of UCP 600. The said Article only defines status of a branch of the bank, situated in a foreign country and provides that the same will be a separate bank thus, the reliance placed by the plaintiff on A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, 1989(2) SC 163 is misplaced. In the said case, it was held that if one or more courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit, parties can confine to the jurisdiction of one court, by an agreement. However, to oust the jurisdiction of a court, clause should be specific in indicating that parties had confined to the jurisdiction of a particular court to the exclusion of other court. Agreement involved in the said case was any dispute arising out of this sale shall be subject to Kaira jurisdiction. It may be noted that in the said case Salem Court as well as Kaira Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. it was held that clause cannot be construed to have excluded the jurisdiction of the court at Salem since words like exclusive, alone, only and the like were not used in the clause and for ousting the jurisdiction of Salem Court and confining it to Kaira Court, such words should have

5 been used. In this case, perusal of Article 3 of UCP 600 does not disclose that jurisdiction of any court has been ousted. The clause in UCP 600 only defines the status of the branches of a bank in different countries as separate entity. Accordingly, I do not find Article 3 of UCP 600 to be in conflict with Section 20 (a) of CPC. In my view, defendant being a separate and independent bank and not being branch of Russian bank in terms of UCP 600, jurisdiction of this court is not attracted within the meaning of Section 20 (a) CPC, since plaintiff has had no dealing with the defendant at any stage, neither Letters of Credit were opened by the plaintiff nor any payment was to be made by it. 13. Even if the contention of plaintiff that defendant is a branch of Russian bank is accepted then also Section 20 (a) CPC read with Explanation thereto is not attracted in the facts of this case. In Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company, (1991) 4 SCC 270 explanation to Section 20 (a) came to be scrutinized threadbare. In the said case appellant M/s Patel Roadways was carrying on its business of a carrier and transporter of goods on hire with its principal office at Bombay and branch offices at various other places. Respondent M/s Prasad Trading Company entrusted consignments of cardamom to appellant at its branch office/subordinate office at Bodinayakanur in Tamil Nadu, to be delivered at Delhi. In the godown of the appellant at Delhi goods got destroyed in a fire as a result whereof consignee refused to take delivery. Respondent instituted a suit in the court of subordinate Judge, Periakulam within whose territorial jurisdiction the subordinate office of the appellant was situated, inasmuch as, goods were entrusted to the appellant for transporting them to Delhi. Appellant relied on a clause in the agreement whereby parties had restricted jurisdiction to the courts at Bombay. In this context, it was scrutinized as to whether Bombay court also had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, arising out of the contract between the parties, in view of the explanation to Section 20 of the Code, since principal office of the appellant was situated at Bombay. In paras 9, 12 and 15 it has been held as under:- 9. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 inter alia refer to a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant inter alia "carries on business". Clause (c) on the other hand refers to a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has not been urged before us on behalf of the appellant that the cause of action wholly or in part arose in Bombay. Consequently Clause (c) is not attracted to the facts of these cases. What has been urged with the aid of the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code is that since the appellant has its principal office in Bombay

6 it shall be deemed to carry on business at Bombay and consequently the courts at Bombay will also have jurisdiction. On a plain reading of the Explanation to Section 20 of the Code we find an apparent fallacy in the aforesaid argument. The Explanation is in two parts, one before the word "or" occurring between the words "office in India" and the words "in respect of" and the other thereafter. The Explanation applies to a defendant which is a corporation which term, as seen above, would include even a company such as the appellant in the instant case. The first part of the Explanation applies only to such a corporation which has its sole or principal office at a particular place. In that event the courts within whose jurisdiction the sole or principal office of the defendant is situated will also have jurisdiction inasmuch as even if the defendant may not be actually carrying on business at that place, it will "be deemed to carry on business" at that place because of the fiction created by the Explanation. The latter part of the Explanation takes care of a case where the defendant does not have a sole office but has a principal office at one place and also has a subordinate office at another place. The words "at such place" occurring at the end of the Explanation and the word "or" referred to above which is disjunctive clearly suggest that if the case falls within the latter part of the Explanation it is not the Court within whose jurisdiction the principal office of the defendant is situated but the court within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office which alone shall have jurisdiction "in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it also has a subordinate office". 12. We would also like to add that the interpretation sought to be placed by the appellant on the provision in question renders the explanation totally redundant. If the intention of the legislature was, as is said on their behalf, that a suit against a corporation could be instituted either at the place of its sole or principal office (whether or not the corporation carries on business at that place) or at any other place where the cause of action arises, the provisions of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) together with the first part of the explanation would have completely achieved the purpose. Indeed the effect would have been wider. The suit could have been instituted at the place of the principal office because of the situation of such office (whether or not any actual business was carried on there). Alternatively, a suit could have been instituted at the place where the cause of action arose under Clause (c) (irrespective of whether the corporation had a subordinate office in such place or not). This was, therefore, not the purpose of the explanation. The explanation is really an explanation to Clause (a). It is in the nature of a clarification on the scope of Clause (a) viz. as to where the corporation can be said to carry on business. This, it is clarified, will be the place where the

7 principal office is situated (whether or not any business is actually carried on there) or the place where a business is carried on giving rise to a cause of action (even though the principal office of the corporation is not located there) so long as there is a subordinate office of the corporation situated at such place. The linking together of the place where the cause of action arises with the place where a subordinate office is located clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that, in the case of a corporation, for the purposes of Clause (a), the location of the subordinate office, within the local limits of which a cause of, action arises, is to be the relevant place for the filing of a suit and not the principal place of business. If the intention was that the location of the sole or principal office as well as the location of the subordinate office (within the limits of which a cause of action arises) are to be deemed to be places where the corporation is deemed to be carrying on business, the disjunctive "or" will not be there. Instead, the second part of the explanation, would have read ' and, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has a subordinate office, also at such place". 15. In this view of the matter since in the instant two cases Clause (c) is not attracted to confer jurisdiction on courts at Bombay and the appellant has admittedly its subordinate offices at the respective places where the goods in these two cases were delivered to it for purpose of transport the courts at Bombay had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the suits filed by the respondents and the parties could not confer jurisdiction on the courts at Bombay by an agreement. Accordingly no exception can be taken to the findings in this behalf recorded by the trial court and the High Court in these two cases. 14. What can be deduced from the above is that the explanation to Section 20(a) is in two parts. First part of the explanation applies only to such corporation or company which has its sole office at a particular place and in such an eventuality Courts, within whose jurisdiction such sole office is situated, will have the jurisdiction, whether the company is actually carrying on business from there or not. Second part of explanation takes care of a case where defendant does not have a sole office but has principal office at one place and has one or more subordinate offices at different places. In that eventuality, in case the cause of action arises at the place, where subordinate office is situated, then the Court, within whose jurisdiction it has a subordinate office where cause of action has also arisen, alone shall have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. If second part is attracted, then first part

8 would not be applicable. This is irrespective of the right of a plaintiff to initiate an action at a place where cause of action has arisen by taking aid of Clause (c) of Section 20 CPC, even though the Principal office or for that matter Subordinate office of a corporation or company is not situated at that place. The intention of legislature was that in case of a corporation, for the purposes of Clause (a), location of the subordinate office, within the local limits of which a cause of action arises, is to be the relevant place for filing of a suit and not the principal place of business. For example, a company A has its sole office at place B and cause of action has arisen at place C. A can invoke jurisdiction of court at place B, by taking aid of Section 20(a) CPC or at place C by placing reliance on Section 20(c) CPC. In case A has principal office at place B and subordinate offices at place D E and F and cause of action has arisen at D and also at C, in that event, plaintiff can institute a suit at place D by invoking Section 20(a) CPC or at place C by invoking Section 20(c) CPC, but it cannot institute a suit at place B where A has its principal office. I am also of the view that Section 20 does not make any distinction between an Indian company/corporation and a foreign company. Sole and principal offices as per the explanation have distinct meaning in view of the word or used between Sole and principal. If a company/corporation has only one office then the former terminology gets attracted but in case it has one principal office with one or more subordinate offices then later would get attracted. 15. In Sri Ganesh Research Institute vs. Union of India & Ors (115) DLT 410, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- An analysis of the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that even though the express terms of Section 20 of the CPC permit the filing of a suit against a Corporation at its principal office, preeminence has been accorded to the place where the cause of action had substantially arisen, from amongst those places where it has incidentally or partially arisen. Whilst the Supreme Court has indubitably enumerated in ABC Laminart v. A.P.Agencies AIR 1989 SC 1239: 1989(2): SCC 163, the several places where the cause of action could be seen to have arisen, this was done primarily to investigate and determine whether the place to which jurisdiction had been restricted by ousting all others itself enjoyed jurisdiction. The position that obtains today is that primacy is accorded to the place where the cause of action substantially arises. (Emphasis supplied)

9 16. In the light of above discussions, I also do not find any force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that in case cause of action is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of subordinate office, it will make Section 20(a) CPC redundant since plaintiff can, otherwise, instituted a suit at the place where cause of action has arisen by invoking Section 20(c) CPC. 17. Plaintiff has placed reliance on Pratap Singh vs. The Bank of America (1976) 78 BOM LR 549 and Madan Kukreja vs. Banque Scalbert Dupont S.A. & Anr. 164 (2009) DLT 277 to contend that in a case in involving a foreign company, having its branch office in India, suit can be filed at such place in India where branch office is situated in view of the Explanation to Section 20(a) CPC, since such branch office will be sole office in India of the said foreign company. I have perused the aforenoted judgments and find them to be inapplicable to the present case. Pratap Singh s case (supra) has been rendered in the context of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which is not pari materia with Section 20 CPC, though it may be substantially in pari materia. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent reads as under:- 12. Original jurisdiction as to suits. And we do further ordain, that the said High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immoveable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits; except that the said High Court, shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Bombay, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees. 18. Explanation to Section 20 CPC, which defines a corporation, is missing in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In other words, scope of Clause 12 is wider than Section 20(a) CPC, which fact has been acknowledged in the said judgment in para 24 wherein it has been observed that under Section 20 CPC, the Court would have jurisdiction in case a part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction; whereas under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent leave of the Court is required to be obtained. Further, judicial

10 interpretation has established that part of the cause of action within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent must be a material part of the cause of action, otherwise leave should ordinarily be refused. Similarly, the further provision Explanation II (Now Explanation as contained in the code), which is found in Section 20 CPC is not found in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The other difference is that for exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court, Clause 12 talks of the defendant dwelling within the jurisdiction, whereas Section 20 CPC requires the defendant to actually and voluntarily reside. In absence of the Explanation to Section 20 CPC, scope of clause 12 of Letters Patent is wider and different. 19. In Pratap Singh (supra), Bank of America, a corporation incorporated in the United States of America, was having a branch in Mumbai. Bank of America had issued certain Time Certificates of Deposit to the plaintiff, in America. Plaintiff lost these Certificates in London together with cashier s cheque for interest. Disputes arose between the plaintiff and Bank of America in respect of said Certificates, which led to filing of a suit for recovery of `5,40,000/- for compensation and damages, against the branch of Bank of America in Bombay. Jurisdiction of Courts at Bombay was challenged by the Bank of America. Plaintiff s contention was that since Bank of America was having its sole office in India at Bombay, jurisdiction of Courts at Bombay was attracted. In these facts, in the context of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, it was held that the Court at Bombay had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Accordingly, this judgment in no manner supports the plaintiff. 20. In Madan Kukreja (supra), a foreign company was having its liaison office at Delhi. Court found that cause of action also arose in New Delhi since goods were handed over to the carrier within the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi, for being sent to France. In these facts it was held that courts at Delhi have jurisdiction. In the case in hand, no cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Thus, this judgment is also of no help to the plaintiff. 21. Registration of the defendant under Section 591 of the Companies Act 1956 is not relevant to attract Section 20 (a) of CPC. Section 591 envisages that companies incorporated outside India establishing a place of business within India shall comply such of the provisions of the Companies Act as may be prescribed with regard to the business carried on by it in India, as if it were incorporated in India. Section 592 specifies the documents which a foreign company establishing a place of business within India has to deliver

11 to Registrar of Companies for registration. The purpose of such registration appears to be to ensure compliance of the Companies Act by such foreign companies establishing office in India and on account of failure, to be amenable to the penal consequences as provided thereunder. Section 596 of the Companies Act envisages the mode and manner of service, process of documents under the Companies Act on the foreign companies having established its office in India. Registration under Section 591 of the Companies Act, at best, may be sufficient to establish existence of such foreign companies in India. Thus, registration of a place of business in India of such foreign companies under Section 591 of the Companies Act would be irrelevant for the purpose of attracting jurisdiction of a particular court, as envisaged under Section 20 CPC, which defines the place of suing the defendant in a civil court. 22. For the foregoing reasons, in my view, Courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the above suits. Accordingly, it is ordered that the plaints be returned to plaintiff to present the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. Applications are disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- A.K. PATHAK, J. MAY 08, 2012

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/2015 % 21 st December, 2015 1. CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay) BIGTREE ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Judgment pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Judgment pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Judgment pronounced on: 13.04.2012 I.A. No.13000/2010 in CS(OS) No.1656/2009 UNIMERS INDIA LIMITED... Plaintiff 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

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. % 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 SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA (OS) No. 20/2002 Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 Decided on : 8th August, 2008 MANSOOR MUMTAZ and ORS. Through : Mr. S.D. Ansari,

More information

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1738/2013 Judgment reserved on 10 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on 23 rd September, 2015 HARISH CHAND TANDON Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Shalini

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

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC)

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 1188 of 2011 & IAs 7950 of 2011 (u/o 39 R. 1 & 2 CPC), 3388 of 2013 (u/o XXVI R. 2 CPC) & 18427 of 2013 (by Plaintiff u/o VII R. 14 CPC) LT FOODS LIMITED...

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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

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

Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award

Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil Courts for Recourse against Arbitral Award By Chakrapani Misra and Arijeet Mukherjee An arbitral award may be challenged under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IA No.10795/2011 in CS(OS) 514/2010 STOKELY VAN CAMP INC & ANR... Plaintiff Through Ms.

More information

Through: Versus. Through: 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Through: Versus. Through: 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP No.552/2006 % Date of decision : 06.07.2009 Sh. Surender Pal Singh Through:. Petitioner Mr. Amit Bansal & Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocates for petitioner. Versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 OMP No.356/2004 Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD. Through : PETITIONER Mr.

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

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006

Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3005 of 2005 PETITIONER: Vidyawati

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Date of decision: 8th February, 2012 WP(C) NO.11374/2006 OCEAN PLASTICS & FIBRES (P) LIMITED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on: November 27, 2015 % W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of Decided On: MANU/TN/3588/2011 Equivalent Citation: 2011(6)CTC11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS C.R.P. (NPD) No. 574 of 2011 Decided On: 26.08.2011 Appellants: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Sivakama Sundari

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : April 25, 2014 + IA No. 5745/2013 (u/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 660/2013 WOCKHARDT LTD. Through... Plaintiff Mr.Ajay Sahni, Ms. Kanika Bajaj and

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2017 + C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016 NEWS NATION NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED... Plaintiff Versus NEWS NATION GUJARAT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT. ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT ITA No.572 of 2011 RESERVED ON: MAY 19, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 11, 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... APPELLANT through : Mr. Sanjeev

More information

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION I.A Nos. 9341/2011 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & 10119/2012( O.39 R.4 CPC) IN CS(OS) 1409/2011 Reserved on: 12th September, 2013 Decided on:

More information

$~OS-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

$~OS-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH $~OS-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1320/2014 Date of Decision: January 16, 2018 LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER... Plaintiff Through Mr.Dhruv Anand, Ms.Udita Patro & Mr.Shamim Nooreyezdan

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI 1 NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 133 of 2017 [Arising out of order dated 10 th August, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company

More information

India. Neerav Merchant. Majmudar & Partners Mumbai. Law firm bio

India. Neerav Merchant. Majmudar & Partners Mumbai. Law firm bio India Neerav Merchant Majmudar & Partners Mumbai nmerchant@majmudarindia.com Law firm bio 1. What are the current challenges to enforcement of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses? At the outset, in

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1439 of 2017) N. Harihara Krishnan Appellant Versus J. Thomas Respondent

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI WATER BOARD ACT, 1998 Date of decision: 4th February, 2011. W.P.(C) 8711-15/2005 & CM No.8018/2005 & CM No.6522/2005 (both for stay) FEDERATION OF

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.09.2017 + W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No. 23379/2017 M/S EPSILON PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS... Respondents

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014 DR. ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Adv.... Petitioner versus STATE

More information

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this

- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment Reserved on: 01.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 18.03.2011 I.A. No. 14803/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1943/1998 Sita Kashyap & Anothers..

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Judgment reserved on: Judgment delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on: 15.03.2011 Judgment delivered on: 18.03.2011 RSA No.243/2006 & CM No.10268/2006 SHRI.D.V. SINGH & ANR...Appellants

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

Benami Transactions - Law in India By

Benami Transactions - Law in India By 1 st, 9th & 11 th Floors, Mohan Dev Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001 (India) Phone: +91 11 42492532 (Direct) Phone: +91 11 42492525 Ext 532 Mobile :- 9810081079 email:- vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: RSA No.46/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 10.3.2011 RSA No.46/2011 VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR. Through: Mr.Atul Kumar, Advocate...Appellants Versus JASWANT RAI

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : 13.03.2013 IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR....Petitioners Through: Mr. Maninder

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2017 S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 16850 OF 2017 (@ S.L.P.(c) No.27722/2017) (D.No.21033/2017) REPORTABLE Himangni Enterprises.Appellant(s) VERSUS Kamaljeet Singh

More information

Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi & Mr. T.R. Thakur, Advocates.

Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi & Mr. T.R. Thakur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION F.A.O. No.375 of 2007 & C.M. Nos.14346/2006, 11550, 16729/2007, 4598/2008, 4915/2009, 9924-9925/2011, 19493, 20294, 21007,

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

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 16 th February, Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.815/2007 % Date of decision: 16 th February, 2010 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura with Ms. Paramjit Benipal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2524A/1995 & IA No.515/1996 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010 M/S. SCANDIA SHIPBROKERING & AGENCY LTD...Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prashant Pratap and

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO OF 2015) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12581 OF 2015) THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE & ANR....APPELLANT(S)

More information

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. W.P. No.750/2017. Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. W.P. No.750/2017. Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No.750/2017 Bar Association Lahar, Dist. Bhind -Versus- State Bar Council of M.P and another Shri Sameer Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sahu,

More information

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003

Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Supreme Court of India Ashan Devi & Anr vs Phulwasi Devi & Ors on 19 November, 2003 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3130 of 2002 Special Leave

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF 2011 Federation of SBI Pensioners Association & Ors....... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors...............

More information

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,

I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha, TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 347/2017 % 23 rd August, 2017 ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC.... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Aditya

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

$~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 3539/2016. versus

$~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 3539/2016. versus $~26, 27 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.09.2016 + W.P.(C) 3539/2016 PHUNTSOK WANGYAL... Petitioner versus MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ORS... Respondents Advocates

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.51/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 17th May, 2012 MS. KRITI KOHLI Through: Mr. Rao Balvir Singh, Advocate... Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 05.07.2011 Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No. 18758/2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER...Appellants Through: Mr.Ved Prakash

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2016) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL No. 197 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29765 of 2016) Smt. K.A. Annamma.Appellant(s) VERSUS The Secretary, Cochin

More information

Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552

Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 and Conciliation Act, 1996 Ss. 2(2), 2(1)(f) & 2(4), (5) & (7), 1, 9, 42, 37, Pt. I and Pt. II - International commercial

More information

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH W.A. NO.122 OF 2014 In the matter of a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014... Sri Kasinath Nayak. Petitioner -Versus- State

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007. Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007. Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. M.(C ) No. 1514/2007 Judgment reserved on: September 05, 2008 Judgment delivered on: November 03, 2008 Suresh Jindal...

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT 1956 Judgment delivered on: 03.01.2013 WP(C) 668/2012 AND CM No.27/2013 (for directions) & CM No.9851/2012 (for directions) M/S. KLEN & MARSHALLS

More information

Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, Through: Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate

Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, Through: Mr. Tarun Rana, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: November 22, 2010 Judgment delivered on: November 24, 2010 + CRL. M.C. NO.2172/2010 & CRL.M.A. No.8555/2010 DHANANJAY JOHRI Through: Mr.

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2017 KLA Const. Technologies Private Limited..Petitioner Versus Kajima India Private Limited Respondent Present:- Dr. Amit George,

More information

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein.

2. The effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding is the question involved herein. Supreme Court of India Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL

More information

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Final Judgment on Police Protection Case by Supreme Court Of India 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5460-5466 OF 2004 MORAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No. 198/2008. Reserved on : 12th September, Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Indian Succession Act, 1925 LPA No. 198/2008 Reserved on : 12th September, 2008 Date of Decision: 20th October, 2008 AVTAR NARAIN BEHAL Through: Mr.Arvind

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5656-5914 1990 PETITIONER: THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: PV. ENTER. REP. BY SCM JAMULUDEEN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

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

Through : Sh. J.K. Mittal and Sh. Vipul Dubey, Advocates.

Through : Sh. J.K. Mittal and Sh. Vipul Dubey, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : FINANCE ACT, 1994 Reserved on: 26.05.2014 Pronounced on : 04.08.2014 W.P.(C) 3774/2013, C.M. NO.7065/2013 TRAVELITE (INDIA)... Petitioner Through : Sh.

More information

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate

% L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF Date of Decision: 13 th October, # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % L.A. APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2008 + Date of Decision: 13 th October, 2009 # UNION OF INDIA...Appellant! Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate Versus $ SHAUKAT RAI (D)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL. WRIT PETITION Nos /2010 (GM-RES),

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL. WRIT PETITION Nos /2010 (GM-RES), 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED: THIS THE 27 th DAY OF JUNE, 2012 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL WRIT PETITION Nos. 38220-221/2010 (GM-RES), BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION No.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RSA No. 252/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 15th January, 2014 SURESH BALA & ORS Through: Mr. B.S.Mann, Advocate....Appellants VERSUS

More information

THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008

THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008 Bill No. XLVI of 2008 THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA CLAUSES 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CRL.M.C. No. 179/2010 Judgment delivered on: 20th December, 2011 MOHAN LAL & ANR.... Petitioner Through : Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

History and Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts

History and Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts History and Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts The historical development of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure is of practical as well as theoretical interest, since opinions in admiralty cases

More information

24 Appeals and Revision

24 Appeals and Revision 24 Appeals and Revision The assessee is given a right of appeal by the Act where he feels aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority. However, the assessee has no inherent right of appeal unless

More information

THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008

THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008 Bill No. XLVI-F of 2008 THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BILL, 2008 (AS PASSED BY THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT RAJYA SABHA ON THE 24TH OCTOBER, 2008 LOK SABHA ON 12TH DECEMBER, 2008) ASSENTED TO ON 7 JAN.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010 Decided on: 9th August, 2011. DEEPAK GARG Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Advocate.... Petitioner versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) No. 3768 of 2015 ------ M/s Tata Steel Limited, an existing Company under previous Company Law, through Mrs. MeenaLall wife of Shri BehariLall,

More information

DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL: AN ANALYSIS

DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL: AN ANALYSIS Open Access Journal available at www.jlsr.thelawbrigade.com 239 DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL: AN ANALYSIS Written By Nidhi Singh & Ritika Rishi 4 th year, B.A.LLB, Chanakya National Law University, Patna Banks

More information

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27162 of 2011 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Singh...... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar......

More information

THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 1982 ACT NO. 1 OF 1982

THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 1982 ACT NO. 1 OF 1982 THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 1982 ACT NO. 1 OF 1982 [4th March, 1982.] An Act to implement the African Development Fund Agreement and for matters connected therewith. BE it enacted by Parliament in

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009. Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009. Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972. BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009 Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011 Judgment delivered on: 16th January,2012 SUDESH KUMAR

More information

Admissibility of Evidence / Documents Dealing with Mid-trial Objections

Admissibility of Evidence / Documents Dealing with Mid-trial Objections Admissibility of Evidence / Documents Dealing with Mid-trial Objections S. Mohamed Abdahir, M.Com., M.L., Additional Director, Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy (1) From its institution to conclusion a

More information

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI BY COURT: 1 W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India) Parmanand Pandey & Anr.. Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.....

More information

Amendments to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Amendments to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 NPPO DIGEST #01 PAGE 1 #01, NOVEMBER 2015 Amendments to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Ashok Sharma The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act ) has been amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation

More information