* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus"

Transcription

1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shashi P. Ojha & Ms. Astha Bhardwaj, Advs. Versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ANR.... Defendants Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IAs No.8/2018 & 9/2018 (both of the plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC and under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) 1. Though these applications have come up before this Court for the first time today but the counsel for both the defendants appearing on advance notice has already filed replies thereto and which are on record and the counsel for the plaintiff states he has received copies of the said replies. The counsels have been heard. 2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit inter alia for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the trademark ANAFORTAN of the plaintiff by adopting the trade mark AMAFORTEN for the same medicinal preparations and to restrain the defendants from passing off their medicinal preparations as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 1 of 17

2 3. The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued though no ex parte injunction granted. Vide subsequent judgment dated 25 th April, 2014, the defendants were restrained by interim injunction from, till the pendency of the suit, using the trade mark AMAFORTEN or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark ANAFORTAN of the plaintiff. The appeal being FAO(OS) No.281/2014 preferred by the defendants did not meet with any success and was disposed of on 10 th September, The said interim injunction has thus attained finality. 4. The plaintiff, in the plaint as originally filed, admitted knowledge of registration of trade mark AMAFORTEN in favour of defendant no.1 and after institution of this suit, before framing of issues and without seeking any permission of this Court and without applying under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, filed a Rectification Application in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) with respect to registration of the trade mark of defendants. 5. On 21 st March, 2016, the following issues were framed in the suit and the parties relegated to trial: (i) (ii) (iii) Whether the defendant s use of the trademark AMAFORTEN amounts to infringement of the plaintiff s registered trademark AMAFORTAN? OPP Whether the suit for infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff is barred as defendant is also a registered proprietor of the trademark in view of Section 28(3) read with Section 29 and Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999? OPD. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPP (iv) Whether the defendant is passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff? OPP CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 2 of 17

3 (v) (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction and damages, if so at what amount? OPP Relief. 6. The plaintiff filed IA No.14337/2017, under Section 124 of the Act, which came up before this Court on 4 th December, Finding that no issue on any plea of invalidity had been urged or been framed and on the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff that he will be applying for amendment of the issues, vide detailed judgment dated 4 th December, 2017, the said application was dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff to apply afresh if files an application for amendment of the issues and if the said application succeeds. 7. Hence, these applications. 8. The plaintiff seeks framing of the following additional issue:- Whether the registration of the impugned mark AMAFORTEN bearing registration no obtained by defendant no.1 is invalid and liable to be rectified? OPP and stay/adjournment of proceedings in the suit till the time the rectification application being ORA/119/2013/TM/KOL filed by plaintiff before IPAB in respect of defendant no.1 s trade mark registration no in class 5 is finally adjudicated and decided. 9. The counsel for the defendants has at the outset argued that the plaintiff, in the plaint as originally filed, pleaded knowledge of the registration of the defendants mark and pleaded that he will be filing an application for rectification of the Trade Marks Register; however, the CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 3 of 17

4 plaintiff while filing the amended plaint, pursuant to order dated 11 th March, 2015 on an earlier application of plaintiff for amendment, without seeking amendment of the plaint to the said effect, has carried out changes in the amended plaint verified on 27 th March, 2015 to plead that the plaintiff had already filed an application for rectification before the IPAB. It is his contention that the said amendment cannot be looked at as being unauthorized. 10. The counsel for the plaintiff agrees and states that for the present purpose, the plaint verified on 15 th December, 2012, as originally filed, be seen and not the amended plaint on record. 11. The counsel for the defendants has at the outset, argued that the plaintiff having not pressed for an issue, when the issues were framed, is deemed to have abandoned the said issue. 12. The counsel for the plaintiff, in rejoinder, refers to S. Surjit Singh Sahni Vs. Brij Mohan Kaur 65 (1997) DLT 670 and on order dated 30 th April, 2013 in CS(OS) No.1457/2009 titled Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and against which no appeal is stated to have been preferred, holding that framing of issues is the duty of the Court and rejection of an earlier prayer does not debar a fresh prayer for framing an issue if it arises from the pleadings and ought to have been framed and has mistakenly not been framed. It is argued that the Court, at the time of framing of issues on 21 st March, 2016, has not applied its mind and not refused to frame the issue about invalidity. It is thus contended that the plaintiff can apply for framing of additional issue. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 4 of 17

5 13. I tend to agree with the counsel for plaintiff. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), vide Order XIV Rule 5 empowers the Court to, at any time before passing a decree, amend the issues or frame additional issues and provides that all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the maters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. Thus, merely because at the time of framing of issues, an issue though arising from pleadings, has not been pressed and/or framed would not stop a subsequent application. The position may be different where an issue is pressed and not framed by a speaking order. In such case, the bar of res judicata, also applicable at successive stages of same proceeding, may come in way of an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. However, in the present case, a perusal of order dated 21 st March, 2016, when issues were framed, does not show any such thing. 14. The counsel for the defendant has drawn attention to the dicta of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies Vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd (19) PTC 718 (Guj) against which Supreme Court has pronounced in Patel Field Marshal Agencies Vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd SCC OnLine SC 1388 (analysed in detail in the earlier judgment dated 4 th December, 2017) and has by reference to paragraph 15 thereof contended that the plaintiff herein having chosen to, after filing of this suit and without seeking the permission of the Court under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, apply to the IPAB for rectification, has now lost the right to apply under Section 124 of the Act. It is argued that the present suit was filed in the year 2012; the rectification petition before the IPAB was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2013 and issues in this suit CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 5 of 17

6 were framed on 21 st invalidity. March, 2016 without pressing the issue qua 15. I have drawn the attention of the counsel for the defendants to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies supra and where the Supreme Court has inter alia held that in case where the issue of invalidity is raised or arises independent of the suit, the prescribed statutory authority will be the sole authority to deal with the matter; however, in a situation where a suit is pending (whether instituted before or after the filing of the rectification application), the exercise of jurisdiction by the prescribed authority is contingent on a finding of the Civil Court as regards the prima facie tenability of the plea of invalidity. Though the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment aforesaid of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court but merely for the said reason, all the observations in the judgment of the Gujarat High Court cannot be said to have been approved by the Supreme Court. 16. Supreme Court, in judgment aforesaid, has exhaustively laid down the law with respect to Section 124 of the Trade Marks and for the situation where a rectification petition is filed after the filing of the suit, held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the prescribed statutory authority i.e. the Registrar or the IPAB with respect thereto is contingent on a finding of the Civil Court as regards prima facie tenability of the plea of invalidity of the registration of the trade mark. 17. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff, for having applied to the IPAB for rectification, after the institution of this suit and without seeking CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 6 of 17

7 the permission of the Court under Section 124 of the Act, is now precluded from seeking such permission. As per the dicta of the Supreme Court, IPAB will not have jurisdiction to decide such application for rectification filed by the plaintiff without this Court pronouncing on the prima facie tenability of the plea of the plaintiff as to invalidity of the registration of the trade mark of the defendants. 18. The counsel for the defendants has next contended that even if an additional issue as sought were to be framed and the application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act to be allowed, the Court can at best grant stay of the trial only qua the plea of infringement and cannot grant stay of proceedings qua the plea of passing off. It is argued that the witness of the plaintiff has been avoiding to be cross-examined. 19. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendants that now that there is an interim injunction against the defendants, what purpose will be served in proceeding with the trial qua the relief of passing off inasmuch as the interim injunction would continue till the claim of the plaintiff of infringement is also decided. 20. The counsel for the plaintiff in this regard has drawn attention to my judgment in Nippon Soda Co. Ltd. Vs. V.P. Goyal 2014 (58) PTC 386 (Del) following the order dated 21 st August, 2013 in CS(OS) No.1172/2008 titled Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. Vs. Kadir Khan, holding that the relief of injunction on the basis of infringement and passing off cannot be split up and cannot be decided at different points of time. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 7 of 17

8 21. The counsel for the defendants then states that the defendants have raised the plea of this Court not having territorial jurisdiction and an issue on which plea has also been framed. 22. I find that the defendants had earlier filed IA No.2100/2013 under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and which was disposed of on 8 th February, 2013 holding that since the plaintiff had invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act as well as Section 20 of the CPC, the plea of this Court lacking territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided without trial. Once that is so, the mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC is for decision of all the issues together and it will not be in the fitness of things to relegate the parties to trial to decide only the issue of territorial jurisdiction. Thus, if the plaintiff were to succeed in these applications, the proceedings in the suit as a whole would have to be stayed. 23. The counsel for the defendants next draws attention to the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Puma Stationer P. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Pencils Ltd (43) PTC 479 (Del.) (DB) to contend that the Division Bench has held that stay of proceedings can only be on the claim of infringement and not on the claim of passing off. 24. The Division Bench in Puma Stationer P. Ltd. supra is not found to have adjudicated the said issue and is merely found to have, while granting stay of proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, observed that the passing off action may continue. Such orders / judgments in which the legal point is not urged, reasoned and decided, do not constitute a precedent and thus it cannot be said that the Division CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 8 of 17

9 Bench in Puma Stationer P. Ltd. has held contrary to Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd. supra and Nippon Soda Co. Ltd. supra. 25. No other arguments have been raised by the counsel for the defendants. 26. I have however drawn attention of the counsel for the plaintiff to Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC which inter alia provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. The plaint as originally filed, in para 13 thereof merely pleads as under: 13. That sometime in July 2012, the Plaintiff through its market enquiries came to know about the unauthorized use of the AMAFORTEN mark by the Defendants. On further inquiry the Plaintiff further came to know that besides blatantly copying the trade mark of the Plaintiff s, the Defendant No.1 has surreptitiously registered the said similar mark AMAFORTEN in class 5 under number It is submitted that the Plaintiff intends to file rectification proceedings against the aforesaid registration of Defendant No.1 as the said mark has been registered is bad faith and the mark is invalidly remaining on the register. Copy of the online extract showing the registration of the Defendant s mark AMAFORTEN is submitted herewith. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to how the aforesaid plea can constitute a material proposition of fact of invalidity of the mark of the defendants, for the plaintiff to be entitled to raise an issue thereon. 27. Both counsels are ad idem that the claim of invalidity before the IPAB is to be under Section 57 of the Act. It has thus been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to where in the plaint has the plaintiff made requisite pleas qua invalidity of the mark. It has further been enquired, CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 9 of 17

10 whether not at the stage under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, for the Court to form a prima facie opinion about the tenability of the plea of invalidity, there have to be detailed pleas therefor. 28. The counsel for the plaintiff draws attention to Section 57(2) of the Act which entitles any person aggrieved from any entry made in the Register without sufficient cause, or from any entry wrongfully remaining on the Register, or from any error or defect in any entry in the Register, to apply to the Registrar or the IPAB for rectification. Attention is next invited to Section 11 of the Act prescribing the relative grounds for refusal of registration and which inter alia provides that a trade mark shall not be registered if, because of its identity with an earlier trade mark and similarity of goods or services covered by the trade mark, or because of its similarity to an earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark. The counsel for the plaintiff contends that there is no dispute that the plaintiff is the prior registrant of its mark ANAFORTAN and a reading of the entire plaint shows pleas of similarity and likelihood of confusion having been made. It is further contended that the plaintiff, in view of Section 12 of the Act, has in para no.13 of the plaint reproduced above, also pleaded the registration of the mark of the defendants to be in bad faith. 29. Thus, the only question which remains to be decided is, whether the plea of the plaintiff in the plaint of invalidity of the mark of the defendants is a material or substantive plea so as to invite framing of an issue. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 10 of 17

11 30. Though the counsel for the plaintiff has sought to contend that no plea is required to be raised and it is sufficient for the litigant to merely plead invalidity, inasmuch as the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the plea of invalidity, but no merit is found in the said contention. Supreme Court, in Patel Field Marshal Agencies supra has held that in cases where proceedings for rectification are not pending at time of institution of the suit, IPAB will come into seisin of the matter of rectification only if the Civil Court is satisfied that an issue with regard to invalidity ought to be framed in the suit and once an issue to the said effect is framed, the matter will have to go to the IPAB and the decision of the IPAB will thereafter bind the Civil Court. It thus cannot be urged today that the plea of invalidity has to be any different from a plea on which the CPC requires an issue to be framed and which as aforesaid, has to be in terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC. 31. I have considered the aforesaid controversy. 32. The pleas of the plaintiff in the plaint, qua similarity and confusion are found to be in the context of infringement and passing off and the plaintiff is not found to have made the requisite pleas of the entry made in the Register with respect to the defendants mark being without sufficient cause. In my view, when no proceedings for rectification of the Register in relation to the trade mark of the opposite party to a suit are pending before the Registrar or the IPAB, Section 124 of the Act cannot be invoked till the party invoking the same has, in its pleadings, pleaded the invalidity of registration of the mark of the opposite party. However, merely pleading invalidity would not suffice, inasmuch as the further CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 11 of 17

12 requirement of Section 124 of the Act, is that the party so invoking Section 124 of the Act, must satisfy the Court that the plea regarding invalidity of registration of the mark of other is prima facie tenable and the Court raises an issue regarding the same. For the Court to raise an issue qua the plea of invalidity, the provisions of Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC, which provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Issues are not to be framed on all propositions of fact or law to be found in the pleadings. 33. I have in Kawal Sachdeva Vs. Madhu Bala Rana 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479 held that the Court is required to peruse the pleadings together with material on record to determine whether the plea taken can be said to be a material one or not so as to invite framing of an issue thereon. Reference was made to D.M. Deshpande Vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (1998) 8 SCC 315, where, in the absence of particulars viz. date, mode and terms of creation of tenancy in the pleadings, it was held that an issue on a bare claim of tenancy ought not to have been framed. Reference in Kamal Sachdeva supra was also made to Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) Vs. M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd (44) DRJ 502 holding that the Court is required to frame issues of fact or of law that necessarily and properly arise for determining the real controversy involved on the pleadings of the parties and that such issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and the Court would not frame an issue which does not arise on the pleadings nor an issue need be framed on a point of law which is perfectly clear; it was further held that the Court is required to apply its mind and understand the facts before framing the issue and CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 12 of 17

13 that if a plea is mala fide or preposterous and vexatious and can be disposed of without going into the facts or is contrary to law or the settled legal position, the Court will not be justified in adopting a hands off policy and allow the game of the defendant to have its sway. Reference was also made to Zulfiquar Ali Khan Vs. Straw Products Limited 87 (2000) DLT 76 where it was observed that a litigant often takes all sorts of false or legally untenable pleas and legal process should not be allowed to be exercised by such persons and only such pleas which give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial and not illusory, unnecessary or mala fide, based on false or untenable pleas. It was also held that Court is not bound to frame an issue on an unnecessary or baseless plea, thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste of valuable court time. Reliance was also placed on Mohammad Hayatkhan Karimkhan Vs. Taramati MANU/MH/1494/2010 holding that in order to frame an issue, it is necessary to consider, whether the plea raised is bona fide or merely raised to delay the decision in the matter and that the Court is not under any obligation to frame and remit the issue mechanically, merely on the same being raised in the written statement, without judicial satisfaction of its necessity and justification. It was yet further held that the Court has a duty to examine the substance and refuse to frame and remit any issue, if the same appears to be demonstrably frivolous and mala fide. Reliance was also placed on Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas Vs. Sudhakar Sagun Bhandari MANU/MH/0819/2008 and Uttam Sambha Deshmukh Vs. Yamunabai MANU/MH/0387/1998 CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 13 of 17

14 holding that when a vague plea is taken, the Court should hesitate to frame an issue on such a vague and bald plea unsubstantiated by any material. 34. I may add that Order XIV Rule 1(2) of CPC defines material propositions to be those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. 35. I may also add that Kawal Sachdeva supra was followed in Adarsh Kumar Puniyani Vs. Lajwanti Piplani 2015 SCC OnLine Del I am thus of the opinion that a mere plea of invalidity in the pleading would not be enough to raise an issue of invalidity or to satisfy the Court that the said plea is prima facie tenable. The party invoking Section 124 of the Act in its pleading will have to make specific averments that may entail it to have the registration of the mark of the other expunged from the Register, even though no such relief can be claimed from the Civil Court. 37. Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies supra analyzed by me in the earlier judgment dated 4 th December, 2017 in this suit, held that the plea with regard to invalidity of registration of trade mark can be deemed to have been abandoned on non-filing of an application for rectification, after order under Section 124 of the Act. It follows that (i) if no application under Section 124 of the Act is filed, even though plea of invalidity is taken in the suit, the said plea would also be deemed to be abandoned; and, (ii) that if plea of invalidity, though is taken but, is not a plea within the meaning of Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC on which the Court can raise an issue or on which the Court can be satisfied of the prima facie CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 14 of 17

15 tenability thereof, even then the party taking such a plea would be deemed to have abandoned the right to challenge the validity of the registration of the mark of the other. 38. Though I have hereinabove observed that the pleas in the plaint pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff are not requisite but following the principle enunciated in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2014) 210 DLT 591 (DB) that the litigant ought not to suffer for poor pleadings and in view of the fact that Patel Field Marshal Agencies supra is of recent vintage and the counsels, on enquiry, state that there is no precedent on the said aspect, I am of the view that benefit should be given to the plaintiff and the aforesaid weakness in the pleadings of the plaintiff should not be allowed to come in the way of the plaintiff to now have an issue on the said aspect framed. 39. Accordingly, the following additional issue is framed in the suit: Whether the registration of the mark AMAFORTEN bearing registration No obtained by the defendant no.1 is invalid and liable to be rectified? OPP. 40. Once the issue is framed, what was argued by the counsel for the plaintiff on 4 th December, 2017 that the interim injunction in the suit in favour of the plaintiff upheld by the Division Bench, is on a prima facie view of similarity and likelihood of confusion, would hold good and the application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act will have to be allowed. 41. The applications are accordingly allowed. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 15 of 17

16 42. I have considered, whether to adjourn the proceedings in this suit for three months to enable the plaintiff to now apply afresh for rectification. 43. However, in the present case, the Rectification Petition as aforesaid has already been filed as far back as in the year I have thus enquired the stage of proceedings in the said Rectification Petition before the IPAB. 44. The counsel for the plaintiff states that pleadings have been completed in the Rectification Petition. 45. Though as per the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies supra, the IPAB till now had no jurisdiction to entertain the said Rectification Petition but it is felt that no purpose will be served in directing the plaintiff to file a fresh Rectification Petition and it is deemed expedient to allow the Rectification Petition already pending to continue. Hence, the need to stay the proceedings in the suit initially for a period of three months is not felt. 46. The proceedings in the suit qua the reliefs claimed on the basis of infringement as well as passing off, for the reasons aforesaid, are stayed with liberty to the parties to apply for revival as and when the need arises. 47. The applications are disposed of. 48. The counsel for the defendants at this stage states that the issue no.3 framed on 21 st March, 2016 be treated as a preliminary issue as plaintiff has already filed affidavit by way of examination of chief of one of its witnesses. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 16 of 17

17 49. I have already hereinabove referred to the order dated 8 th February, 2013 of dismissal of the application of the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and which order has attained finality. It has been held therein that the said issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided without recording evidence. Once evidence is required to be recorded, the decision of the issues in terms of Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC and Mars, Incorporated Vs. T. Raghulal 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1667 cannot be piecemeal and thus the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue. JANUARY 03, 2018 gsr/bs RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. CS(OS) 3534/2012 Page 17 of 17

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

*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 : 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

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 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. 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 : 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. % 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: 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. 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 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 : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS) 1274/2004. Date of decision :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS) 1274/2004. Date of decision : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CS(OS) 1274/2004 Date of decision : 15.01.2009 SYNDICATE OF THE PRESS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE ON BEHALF OF THE CHANCELLOR,

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

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

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

- 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 : 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 : 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

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 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

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

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

More information

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

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

$~ * 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

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 : 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 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

* 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

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. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 12 th December, 2017 J U D G M E N T

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 12 th December, 2017 J U D G M E N T $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1028/2015 ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate with Ms. Harsha, Advocate. versus PLATONIC MARKETING & ANR Through:

More information

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

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

More information

* 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

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure Judgment delivered on: 11.07.2008 IA No. 2399/2007 in CS (OS) 383/2007 (u/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC), IA No. 6301/2007 in CS (OS) 383/2007

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 : 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

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

- 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 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

% 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. % 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 : 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. 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

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 30 th May, FAO(OS) No.241/2014 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 30 th May, FAO(OS) No.241/2014 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 30 th May, 2014 + FAO(OS) No.241/2014 PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING (TIANJIN) CO. LTD. & ORS... Appellants Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi & Mr.

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

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. % 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

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : 14.03.2013 GUPTA AND GUPTA AND ANR Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate.... Petitioners

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 ARB.P. 63/2012 Date of Decision : December 06, 2012 M/S RURAL COMMUNICATION & MARKETING PVT LTD... Petitioner Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No. 40/2012 DATE OF Decision : 18th January, 2012 M/S SEWA INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS & ORS... Appellants Through : Md. Rashid,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/ Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/ Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % I.A. No.10879/2012 in CS(OS) 1698/2012 + Date of Decision: 29 th January, 2014 # LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION AND ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Amit Sibal

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

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 : 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

% 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

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

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 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3166 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.34719 of 2011) Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami & Anr. Appellant(s) :Versus.:

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 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

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 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 SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No. 293 of Reserved on: September 08, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No. 293 of Reserved on: September 08, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO (OS) No. 293 of 2007 Reserved on: September 08, 2008 Date of judgment: December 3, 2008 DABUR INDIA LTD.... Through: Appellant

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

M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA LTD Through: Ms Jasleen K. Oberoi and Ms Surbhi Mehta, Advs.

M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA LTD Through: Ms Jasleen K. Oberoi and Ms Surbhi Mehta, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 O.M.P. 529/2014 Judgement reserved on: 08.12.2014 Judgement pronounced on: 27.01.2015. M/S UTC FIRE & SECURITY INDIA

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) 3 CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. MAKING OF APPEAL 3. (1) Right of appeal. (2) Appeals

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

Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002.

Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002. ORDINANCE NO. XXVI OF 2002 AN ORDINANCE to consolidate and enact the law relating to small claims and minor offences WHEREAS it is expedient and necessary to consolidate and enact the law relating to small

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 AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) Pronounced on: December 11, 2015 M/S IMS MERCANTILES PVT. LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta with Mr.Saurabh

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7284 of 2016) CHANDRAKESHWAR PRASAD @ CHANDU BABU Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF

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 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

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Order delivered on: 2 nd September, I.A. No.17351/2015 in CS (OS) 2501/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Order delivered on: 2 nd September, I.A. No.17351/2015 in CS (OS) 2501/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order delivered on: 2 nd September, 2015 + I.A. No.17351/2015 in CS (OS) 2501/2015 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)... Plaintiff Through Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan,

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

F-26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 148/2017 & I.As. 3483/2015 AND 12144/2015 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS.

F-26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 148/2017 & I.As. 3483/2015 AND 12144/2015 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS. F-26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 148/2017 & I.As. 3483/2015 AND 12144/2015 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY LTD. & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, 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

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

WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC)

WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 BEFORE R THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.31126/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Between: WRIT PETITION No.27925 OF 2012 (LA-RES) Sri.Shambanna

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

Johnson Maina Stephen & 26 others v Unity Housing Co-operative Society [2017] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA

Johnson Maina Stephen & 26 others v Unity Housing Co-operative Society [2017] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI CASE NO. 550 OF 2012 JOHNSON MAINA STEPHEN & 26 OTHERS CLAIMANT VERSUS UNITY HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY RESPONDENT RULING 1. This is a ruling

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)

SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India

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 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

DRAFT RULES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

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

More information

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

F.M.A. No of 2014 with C.A.N. No of Sk. Rabiul Alam. Versus Dinesh Kumar Goyal and another.

F.M.A. No of 2014 with C.A.N. No of Sk. Rabiul Alam. Versus Dinesh Kumar Goyal and another. Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Present: The Hon'ble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee And The Hon'ble Justice Subrata Talukdar F.M.A. No. 2192 of 2014 with C.A.N.

More information

Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958

Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 Central Government Act The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 ACT NO. 43 OF 1958 [ 17th October, 1958.] An Act to provide for the registration and better protection

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN HEARD ON: 2 FEBRUARY 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN HEARD ON: 2 FEBRUARY 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case No.: 51092016 FIDELITY

More information

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 30 th December, 1999, and is hereby published for general information: The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and

More information

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL ERT/RN 30/2017 RULING Before: Shameer Janhangeer Sounarain Ramana Rabin Gungoo Renganaden Veeramootoo Vice-President Member Member Member In the matter of: - Mr Manish MEEHEELAUL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. W.P.(C) No of Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. W.P.(C) No of Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.18028 of 2005 Reserved on: 5.10.2006 Date of Decision: November 21, 2006 Ram Jatan Tripathi... PETITIONER Through Mr. H.K.Chaturvedi,

More information

Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs

Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Question Q219 National Group: Title: Contributors: Reporter within Working Committee: India Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPRs Amarjit Singh Amarjit Singh Date: October 15, 2011 Questions The

More information