* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling"

Transcription

1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2711/2015 % 28 th October, 2015 SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL Through:... Plaintiff Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus SH. RAJ GOYAL AND ORS. Through:... Defendants CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) I.A. No.18670/2015 (condonation of delay) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling is condoned. I.A. stands disposed of. I.A. No.18669/2015 (exemption) 2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of. I.A No. /2015 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC) (Be registered) 3. This application is allowed. Amended plaint is taken on record. CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 1 of 14

2 + CS(OS) No.2711/2015 and I.A. No.18668/2015 (stay) 4. This suit is coming up today at the admission stage for the fourth time. For the first time the suit came up on and on the second time the suit came up on On these dates it was observed that the suit may have to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself because the requisite ingredients of cause of action of existence of HUF properties were not mentioned in the plaint and therefore the suit would be barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, The Orders dated and read as under:- Order dated CS(OS) 2711/2015, I.A. Nos.18669/2015 (Exemption), 18670/2015 (Condonation of delay in re-filing) & 18668/2015 (Stay) 1. No one appeared for plaintiff in the first call. No one appears for the plaintiff even in the second call. It is noticed that in this suit which is for partition, the averments which are made with respect to a HUF, are not sufficient in law to make a complete cause of action of existence of HUF and its properties for the plaintiff to seek reliefs of partition, rendition of accounts etc. In fact the suit, consequently, will be barred by The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Since no one appears for the plaintiff, in the interest of justice this suit is re-notified, however, if no one appears on the next date of hearing appropriate orders will be passed. 3. List on 1 st October, Order dated A plaint has to have clear cut averments as to on which cause of action plaintiff claims ownership rights and hence partition of a suit property. Firstly, the prayer clause states that the properties stated in the CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 2 of 14

3 plaint be partitioned without stating what are the properties of which partition is sought in terms of the prayer clause and the plaint contains quite a few properties, and that too in different names. The plaint is also totally vague as to how plaintiff is claiming to be the owner as to whether the properties have devolved upon the plaintiff and which properties were owned by the predecessor of the plaintiff or if properties are HUF properties then how the properties are HUF properties and how and when the HUF came into existence. 2. In law, there have to be clear cut channels and chapters of causes of action with respect to the reliefs claimed, and which are conspicuous by their absence in the present plaint. 3. I have already adjourned the matter on when none was present for the plaintiff and which order also notes that the suit may possibly be barred by The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Counsel for the plaintiff states that he will take steps to amend the plaint and which plaint must necessarily specify exactly and in which manner qua which property rights arise in favour of the plaintiff with details as to how and when such rights arose. 4. List on 20 th October, It is made clear that in case necessary steps are not taken before the next date of hearing, appropriate orders will be passed in the suit on the next date of hearing. 5. As per the amended plaint filed, plaintiff seeks the relief of partition for a total of 16 immovable properties which are contained at serial nos.1(1) to 1(7), 1(9), 1(11) to 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19) of the prayer clauses of the plaint. Properties at serial nos.1(8) & 1(17) are shares and bonds, serial nos.1 (10) & 1(20) pertains to sale proceeds of immovable properties already disposed of and the property at serial no.1(21) is of family jewellery. These 21 properties, CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 3 of 14

4 16 of which are immovable properties of which partition is sought, as stated in the prayer clause are as under:- S. NO. PARTICULARS OF PROPERTY SHARE OF PLAINTIFF 1. Flat No , New Anaj Mandi, Filmistan, Delhi 2. H. No.4522, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi- 35 (136 sq. yards) having plot number 73 out of khasra no.165 Village Chowkri Mubarkabad, Delhi, abadi known as ram nagar, Tri Nagar Delhi H. No.2790 Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi-35 (100 sq. yards) earlier plot No.4 out of Khasra No.627/170, Village Chowkri Mubarkabad, Delhi, colony known as Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. 4. Flat No , New Anaj Mandi, Filmistan, Delhi-6 5. H. No.3359, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi (100 sq. yards) Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34 (200 sq yds) 7. C-402, Karan Vihar, Part-III, forming part of plot No.5 Khasra no.525, Suleman Nagar, Kirari, Delhi-86. One by sixteen One by sixteen One by sixteen One by forty eight One by sixteen 8. Shares and bonds of around Rs.5 lakhs 9. Shop No.8288/1, New Anaj Mandi, Filmistan, Delhi Sale proceed of 6 lacs of tenancy right 8399, New Anaj Mandi Bara Hindu Rao Filmistan CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 4 of 14

5 Delhi and 11 machinery and goodwill 11. B-371, Hari Enclave, Part-II, out of Khasra no.525, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi admeasuring about 110 sq. yds. (Plot no.16, Khasra no.525, Kirari, Ex-2, Delhi). 12. Plot no.c-415, Karan Vihar, Part-III, out of plot no.233, khasra no.534, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi admeasuring about 110 sq. yds. 13. Plot no.17 out of khasra No.528, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Ex-2, Delhi admeasuring about 200 sq yds. 14. Plot no.32 out of Khasra No.526, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi admeasuring about 200 sq yds. 15. Plot no.c-21, Khasra no.45, Budh Vihar, Phase- II, Delhi admeasuring about 200 sq. yds. 16. Plot no.o-1/33, Khasra no.83, Budh Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi admeasuring about 100 sq. yds. present market value of the property is about Rs.75 lakhs 17. Shares and bonds of about 10 lakhs 18. Plot No.B-388, Hari Enclave, Part-II Out of Khasra No.525, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-86 (200 sq. yards). 19. One plot out of Khasra No.528, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-86 (200 Sq. yards). 20. Sale proceeds of two plots bearing number G- 27/ , Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi for around 49 lakhs, and another plot no.246 out of khasra no.159 at Sheeshmahal Enclave, Kirari admeasuring 250 sq. yds. for around 68 lakhs One by sixteen One by sixteen 21. Family jewellery valuing about Rs.1 crore CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 5 of 14

6 6. So far as the immovable properties falling between serial nos.1(11) to 1(16) are concerned, they are admittedly purchased, as per averments made in the plaint, by means of title documents in the name of defendant no.2/smt. Shakuntala Devi and who is the mother of the plaintiff. Once title documents exist in favour of a particular person i.e Smt. Shakuntala Devi/defendant no.2, it is Smt. Shakuntala Devi who would be the owner of such properties unless it is averred in the plaint as to how an HUF existed or was created. However, there are no averments in the plaint as to how an HUF existed or was created, and which aspect in detail is dealt with hereinbelow. 7. As per the facts of the present case, grandfather of the plaintiff is Sh. Tulsi Ram, and who admittedly died on i.e after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, It is now settled law that if a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and properties owned by the deceased are inherited by his male successors-in-interest, then, the male successors-in-interest take the properties as self-acquired properties and not as HUF properties. The only exception to this position is that an HUF being created for the first time after 1956 by throwing property or properties in common hotchpotch. This is the law in view of the ratio laid down in the CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 6 of 14

7 two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. The relevant para of the judgment in the case of Yudhishter (supra) reads as under:- 10. This question has been considered by this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. v. Chander Sen and Ors. MANU/SC/0265/1986MANU/SC/0265/1986 : [1986]161ITR370(SC) where one of us (Sabyasachi Mukharji, J) observed that under the Hindu Law, the moment a son is born, he gets a share in father's property and become part of the coparcenary. His right accrues to him not on the death of the father or inheritance from the father but with the very fact of his birth. Normally, therefore whenever the father gets a property from whatever source, from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separated property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members who form joint Hindu family with him. This Court observed that this position has been affected by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8, he does not take it as Kar of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity. At pages 577 to 578 of the report, this Court dealt with the effect of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the commentary made by Mulla, 15th Edn. pages as well as Mayne's on Hindu Law 12th Edition pages Shri Banerji relied on the said observations of Mayne on 'Hindu Law', 12th Edn. at pages This Court observed in the aforesaid decision that the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court, the Madras High Court the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court appeared to be correct and was unable to accept the views of the Gujarat High Court. To the similar effect is the observation of learned author of Mayne's Hindu Law, 12th Edn. page 919. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult to hold that property which developed on a Hindu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be HUF in his hand vis-a-vis his own sons. If that be the position then the property which developed upon the father CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 7 of 14

8 of the respondent in the instant case on the demise of his grandfather could not be said to be HUF property. If that is so, then the appellate authority was right in holding that the respondent was a licensee of his father in respect of the ancestral house. 8. Therefore, once the grandfather Sh. Tulsi Ram died on and the father of the plaintiff Sh. Duli Chand died on , inheritance by Sh. Duli Chand of the properties of Sh. Tulsi Ram would be as self-acquired properties by Sh. Duli Chand, and these properties would not be HUF properties in the hands of Sh. Duli Chand for the male successors-in-interest of Sh. Duli Chand to have a right in the same by birth. Plaintiff therefore can claim no rights in the properties of his father Sh. Duli Chand allegedly on the ground of HUF properties once these properties would be self-acquired properties in the hands of Sh. Duli Chand as they have been inherited by Sh. Duli Chand from Sh. Tulsi Ram only in the year 1983 i.e after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as read with the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chander Sen and Others(supra) and Yudhishter (supra). 9. Let us now examine the general averments of the plaint as to whether it is stated that Sh. Tulsi Ram or Sh. Duli Chand created an HUF for the first time by throwing properties in common hotchpotch. It is sine qua non upon the plaintiff to aver in the plaint of creation of an HUF by CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 8 of 14

9 throwing the properties in common hotchpotch and only on which basis an HUF can come into existence after passing of the Hindu Succession Act in General averments that properties are family properties or that businesses were carried out for the benefit of the family cannot in law result either in averments constituting a cause of action of HUF properties or in creation of an HUF, and which is only created/pleaded to exist on the mentioning of a specific date/month/year when an HUF is created for the first time by throwing the properties in common hotchpotch. The plaint is conspicuously silent as regards any averments of either Sh. Tulsi Ram or Sh. Duli Chand creating an HUF after the year 1956 by throwing the properties into common hotchpotch. The only averment is that businesses were carried on for the benefit of the family members and properties were purchased for the benefit of family members and which averments in law do not create or show a cause of action existing of an HUF being created by throwing the properties in common hotchpotch. Also, there are no averments in the plaint as to the properties being shown as HUF properties either in the house tax record or in income tax record or any other public record whatsoever. 10. In view of the above, so far as the properties which are purchased by means of title papers in the name of defendant no.2 or the CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 9 of 14

10 defendant no.2 jointly with Sh. Brijesh Garg/defendant no.14 or any other defendant are concerned, these properties would be the properties of these persons and plaintiff cannot claim any rights to these properties. The suit seeking partition and possession of these immoveable properties is therefore dismissed. 11. The aforesaid discussion will cover immovable properties falling within serial nos.1(4) to 1(7), 1(9), 1(11) to 1(16) and 1(18) and 1(19) of the prayer clause in the plaint. Properties nos.1(11) to 1(16) are of the mother/defendant no.2 and in whose name the title papers exist as per the averments in the plaint and the two properties being at serial nos.1(18) and 1(19) of the prayer clause in the plaint are owned by the defendant nos.2 and 14 and in whose name the property papers exist as per the plaint. Accordingly, the suit seeking the relief of partition of these properties is dismissed as plaintiff does not have any right to these properties inasmuch as no HUF is shown to exist. 12. That takes us to the properties which were purchased by the father Sh. Duli Chand jointly with the defendant no.8/sh. Kanwar Sain and which properties are at serial nos.1(1) to 1(3) of the prayer clause in the plaint. The discussion given above with respect to non-existence of an HUF CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 10 of 14

11 will also similarly apply so far as these properties not being HUF properties are concerned and therefore the relief seeking partition of these properties on the ground that these properties are HUF properties would stand rejected and the suit dismissed. 13. The only other way in which plaintiff could have claimed a share to the properties which were owned jointly by his father Sh. Duli Chand with any other person was if Sh. Duli Chand had died intestate i.e without leaving behind a Will. Admittedly, the father Sh. Duli Chand expired long back on and there is no whisper/averment in the plaint that the father Sh. Duli Chand died intestate without leaving behind any Will. Though counsel for the plaintiff today on the fourth date of admission states that actually some other suit is filed by defendant no.2 in which it is stated by the defendant no.2 that her husband and the father of plaintiff died intestate, but so far as averments in this plaint with respect to the plaintiff being an owner on account of the father having died intestate and hence plaintiff having a share are concerned, the same are conspicuous by their absence and therefore the plaint does not disclose a cause of action of the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim a share in the properties owned by the father and the plaint so far as these three properties are concerned is thus CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 11 of 14

12 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for lacking in averments with respect to a cause of action of the plaintiff having ownership of these properties by inheritance. Plaintiff, of course, will have liberty in accordance with law for filing a fresh suit with respect to these properties because rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC will not prevent the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit as Order VII Rule 13 CPC allows filing of a fresh suit on a proper cause of action being averred. 14. The discussion given above with respect to the properties jointly in the name of Sh. Duli Chand and defendant no.8/sh. Kanwar Sain will equally apply to the properties which are standing in the name of the grandmother Smt. Parvati Devi (who has since expired on ) and Sh. Anil Aggarwal/defendant no.10. Also, Smt. Parvati Devi being the grandmother of the plaintiff, therefore on her death the properties of Smt. Parvati Devi will be inherited by Sh. Duli Chand as self-acquired properties and therefore plaintiff would not in any case have a right to any properties owned by Sh. Duli Chand as inherited by him from his mother Smt. Parvati Devi, unless of course it is found that Sh. Duli Chand died without leaving behind any Will and with respect to which aspect liberty has also been given CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 12 of 14

13 as stated above to the plaintiff to file an appropriate suit for seeking rights to the suit properties owned by the father of the plaintiff Sh. Duli Chand if Sh. Duli Chand has died without leaving behind any Will. I may note that the same reasoning will also apply with respect to property no.3359, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi which is said to have been purchased in the name of Sh. Duli Chand and Smt. Saroj Bala/defendant no The reliefs with respect to any other movable properties which were owned by Sh. Duli Chand and to which if plaintiff has a right, as stated above, the plaintiff will have to file an appropriate suit making the requisite averments constituting the cause of action for seeking share in the properties of the father Sh. Duli Chand. 16. In view of the above, the suit is dismissed so far as the cause of action seeking partition on the ground that the properties are family properties is concerned, inasmuch as there is no concept of family properties and an HUF does not exist as required by law for the plaintiff to claim a right in the properties on the ground that these properties are HUF properties. So far as the properties which are said to have been owned by the father Sh. Duli Chand are concerned, the plaintiff on making averments with respect to a complete cause of CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 13 of 14

14 action, the plaintiff will be entitled in accordance with law to file a fresh suit. Suit is dismissed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. OCTOBER 28, 2015 Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J CS(OS) No.2711/2015 Page 14 of 14

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 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

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 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

$~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 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. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 1 st October, MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR. Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.1200/2006 % 1 st October, 2015 MRS. VANEETA KHANNA AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. Versus MR. RAJIV GUPTA AND ORS. Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 332/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 16th January, 2014 RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. Through: Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

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 : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA 689/1998 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 16, 2012 NAR SINGH DASS GUPTA... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashwini Mata, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

More information

* 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. Dated of Reserve: July 21, Date of Order : September 05, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Dated of Reserve: July 21, Date of Order : September 05, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Dated of Reserve: July 21, 2008 Date of Order : September 05, 2008 CM(M) No.819/2007 Rajiv Sud...Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta

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 : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RC. REV. No.75/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. JAI SHREE LALLA Through: Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Judgment: R.S.A.No. 90/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Judgment: 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 90/2007 SH. NARAIN SINGH & ORS...Appellants Through: Ms. Sukhda Dhamiza, Advocate along with

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

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. 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. + 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 : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: Pronounced on: RFA (OS) 14/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROPERTY WILL MATTER Reserved on: 10.12.2013 Pronounced on: 15.01.2014 RFA (OS) 14/2013 CAP. VIJAY KUMAR TREHAN.Appellant Through: Sh. Anil Amrit with

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 FAO No. 421/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014 BIMLA DEVI & ANR. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Rajput, Advocate....Appellants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, FAO (OS) No. 270/2004. RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, FAO (OS) No. 270/2004. RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 FAO (OS) No. 270/2004 RESERVED ON :October 1st, 2008 DATE OF DECISION : January 16, 2009 RADHIKA NARANG and ORS....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION CS(OS) 374/1993 Date of Decision : July 09, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION CS(OS) 374/1993 Date of Decision : July 09, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION CS(OS) 374/1993 Date of Decision : July 09, 2012 SHRI GAJINDER PAL SINGH Through: Ms. Mala Goel, Advocate.... Plaintiff versus SHRI

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

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

Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Corrected IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6015 OF 2009 State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellant(s) versus Ashwani Kumar and others Respondent(s)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 MRS. VEENA SETH Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate... Plaintiff Versus

More information

CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad. Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff. None for defendant.

CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad. Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff. None for defendant. CS no. 26/15 M/s Simulax SMT Solutions Vs. M/s Quad Sh. Dheeraj Bhidhudi counsel for plaintiff None for defendant. Present case has been transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, learned ADJ 07,

More information

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman. Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person. Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD been settled. It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has On

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

* 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 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

- 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. 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

Suit No. : 570/15 13/01/2016. Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant.

Suit No. : 570/15 13/01/2016. Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant. Suit No. : 570/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant. Vakalatnama filed by the counsel for the defendant alongwith WS. Copy given. Now put up for replication / documents / admission denial

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, 2014. RFA 269/2013 GANGADHAR PADHY... Appellant Through: Counsel for the appellant (appearance not given)

More information

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs.

Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Mr. Murari Kumar and Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 13th May, 2014 FAO(OS) 579/2013 & CM No.20049/2013 (for stay) SMT. SANTOSH ARORA & ORS Through: Mr. Ankit Jain,

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 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014) versus IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13361 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29621 of 2014) Rakesh Mohindra Anita Beri and others versus Appellant (s)

More information

APPLICATION FOR DECEASED CLAIM (To be used when account has nomination or is a joint account with survivor clause)

APPLICATION FOR DECEASED CLAIM (To be used when account has nomination or is a joint account with survivor clause) ANNEXURE 1(A) APPLICATION FOR DECEASED CLAIM (To be used when account has nomination or is a joint account with survivor clause) To The Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank,.Branch Dear Sir, Re:

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 + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 EKO INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sumit Roy, Advocate versus MR. SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV Through

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

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

possession thereof ever since The sale deed dated in favour of plaintiff was created to lay a false claim over the suit property. The p

possession thereof ever since The sale deed dated in favour of plaintiff was created to lay a false claim over the suit property. The p IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2002 Decided On: 22.04.2009 T.K. Mohammed Abubucker (D) Thr. LRs. and Ors. Vs. P.S.M. Ahamed Abdul Khader and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: R.V. Raveendran

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

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

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER OF INDUSTRIES 419, UDYOGSADAN, FIE, PATPARGANJ,DELHI -92 No. DCI/ILMAC/CI/2011/ I-t ~ 7- 'L - J'D. Dated: 81 ft I J Minutes of the meetina of the Industrial

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BETWEEN DATED THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO Writ Appeal No.597 of 2008

More information

Vide our judgement dated 07 th May, 2016 the

Vide our judgement dated 07 th May, 2016 the BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Original Application No. 222 of 2014 Forward Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. CORAM : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR,

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

% 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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA NO. 179 OF 2008 % Date of Decision: 7 th September, 2009 # KAVITA GAMBHIR.Appellant! Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate. Versus $ HARI CHAND GAMBHIR & ANR.

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

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 SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : Date of Decision : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 Date of Reserve : 14.02.2013 Date of Decision : 28.05.2013 LPA 858/2004 BANWARI LAL SHARMA Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR. WRIT PETITION Nos OF 2015 (GM-CPC) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.460-462 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.B.R.NAGALAKSHMI

More information

AMFI Working Group has suggested the enclosed Guidelines on the recommendations in respect of the Minors, Guardians, and Nominations & Transmissions.

AMFI Working Group has suggested the enclosed Guidelines on the recommendations in respect of the Minors, Guardians, and Nominations & Transmissions. AMFI Best Practice Guidelines Circular No.20/2010-11 dated 9th February, 2011 Guidelines on Accounts of Minor and Account Status Change - Minor attaining Majority, Change of Guardian, Registration of Nominee

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 WP(C) No.14332/2004 Pronounced on : 14.03.2008 Sanjay Kumar Jha...

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.14832/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. K. Bhagyamma,

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 B E F O R E THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOS.17117 & 17437/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Sri

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

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Writ Appeal Nos.462, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 25, 166, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223,

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Case No: 1. Shri Manik Chakraborty S/o late Bijoy Chakravorty R/o Rangapara Town, Ward No. 4, P.O. Rangapara,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.571 OF 2017 Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & Another.Petitioners Versus All India Council

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2011) :Versus: 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4043 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10173 of 2011) Central Bank of India Appellant :Versus: C.L. Vimla & Ors.

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of 2001 Judgment reserved on: December 16, 2009 % Judgment delivered on: January 11, 2010 Chander Bhan S/o Shri Chhotey Lal R/o Village

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

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTIONS 1. Short title and extent. 2. Application of Act. 3. Definitions and interpretation. 4. Overriding effect of Act. CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER

More information

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus

+ I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999. Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.5733/2010 & CS (OS) 1356/1999 Date of Reserve : 05.08.2010 Date of decision: 25.10.2010 SMT. SUDESH MADHOK Through: Mr. P.D. Gupta, Advocate.... Plaintiff

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 Reserved on: 22.09.2015 Pronounced on: 19.11.2015 + FAO (OS) 131/2012 COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY AND ANR. Appellants Through: Sh. Pravin Anand, Advocate. Versus

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 : 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

FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE

FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE 1 FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE Against three mortgages of agricultural lands situated in villages Pal and Bhatha admeasuring

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK. (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK. (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction) THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction) DATED: 13 th NOVEMBER, 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment reserved on: % Judgment delivered on: Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment reserved on: % Judgment delivered on: Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA (OS) No.20/1996 Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2010 % Judgment delivered on: 03.12.2010 Smt. Simrat Katyal Through: Shri Varinder Katyal Through:...Appellant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 670 OF 1995 Date of Decision : July 14th, 2008. NARAIN SINGH & ANOTHER... Petitioners. Through Mr.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2009 MOHAN LAL APPELLANT VERSUS NAND LAL RESPONDENT N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT This appeal by special leave

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 % Judgment delivered on: 04.01.2017 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2016 & CM 37888/2016 BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LTD & ANR... Appellants versus MJ BIZCRAFT LLP & ANR... Respondents

More information

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 http://judis.nic.in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2412 of 2006 PETITIONER: Prem Singh & Ors. RESPONDENT: Birbal & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K.

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION No. 4807/2012 Sri Bipul Chandra Barman S/O Late Ananta Barman Vill Mohkhali & P.O. Gopalthan PS-Belsor,

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

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

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals

K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, all appeals Madras High Court K.S.Gita vs Vision Time India Pvt. Ltd on 16 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE

More information

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam.

CRP No. 429 of The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its Director Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam. THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh) CRP No. 429 of 2008 The Ahmed Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., K.N.C.B. Path, Boiragimath, Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision: Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, APP. Versus. Through Nemo

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision: Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, APP. Versus. Through Nemo * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.A No.10232/2008 & Crl. LP No.182/2008 % Date of Decision: 21.10.2010 State Badrul & Ors. Through Mr. Saleem Ahmed, APP Versus Through Nemo. Petitioner.

More information

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

THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS (IMPOSITION OF TAX) BILL, 2015 AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 84 of CLAUSES THE UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS (IMPOSITION OF TAX) BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement.

More information

Case No. 135 of Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Member. (1) M/s B.S.Channabasappa & Sons...Petitioner 1

Case No. 135 of Shri Vijay L. Sonavane, Member Smt. Chandra Iyengar, Member. (1) M/s B.S.Channabasappa & Sons...Petitioner 1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Tel No 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 022 22163976 E-mail mercindia@mercgovin Website:

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 311/2015 & CM APPL.11593/2015. Versus WITH

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 311/2015 & CM APPL.11593/2015. Versus WITH * HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 311/2015 & CM APPL.11593/2015 Pronounced on: 15 th January, 2016 YODH RAJ Through:... Petitioner Mr. Vijay K. Gupta & Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates. Versus NARAIN

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 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

ANNEXURE O TRANSMISSION FORM. ISIN Name of Company No. of securities

ANNEXURE O TRANSMISSION FORM. ISIN Name of Company No. of securities To, Name of Participant Address of Participant ANNEXURE O TRANSMISSION FORM Date I/We, the undersigned, being the Executor(s) of the Will Administrator(s) of the Estate Successor(s) to the Estate Survivors

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 7 th January, CRL.M. C. 651/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.2491/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 7 th January, CRL.M. C. 651/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.2491/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 7 th January, 2016 + CRL.M. C. 651/2015 & Crl. M.A. No.2491/2015 MRS. NANDA KHEMKA & ANR.... Petitioners Through Mr.S.K. Sharma, Adv.

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