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

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

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

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.... Plaintiff versus SHAKTI DOGRA & ORS Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate.... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL ORDER REVA KHETRAPAL, J. 1. This is an application filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of the ex parte order dated granted by this Court in IA No.7816/2011 in the above suit. 2. By the aforesaid order dated May 13, 2011, the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the title, possession and construction of the property bearing No.D-13A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi till the next date of hearing. The plaintiff was directed to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within one week from the date of the passing of the order. 3. On August 18, 2011, the defendants filed the present application for vacation of the aforesaid stay order, which was listed on , on which date notice in this application was directed to be issued to the

2 plaintiff/non-applicant through counsel. Reply has since been filed by the plaintiff opposing the vacation of the stay order granted by the Court. 4. The Court has heard the contentions of Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, the learned counsel for the applicants/defendant Nos.1 to The defendants/applicants, in the application, allege that the plaintiff has been able to procure an ex parte order in his favour qua the suit premises by concealing material facts which, if the same had been brought to the notice of the Court, the order dated would not have been passed. It is alleged that the plaintiff has falsely averred that late Shri Sohan Lal, father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and father-in-law of defendant No.2 died intestate. It is stated that it was in fact in the knowledge of the plaintiff that late Shri Sohan Lal, who died on , much prior to his death had executed a Will dated , which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances on the said date as Document No.775 in Additional Book No.3, Volume No.74 on pages 1 to 3. By virtue of the said registered Will, the plaintiff Shri Shambhu Dutt and the defendant No.3 Smt. Pushpa Sharma had been excluded by the testator, late Shri Sohan Lal from any share in the estate of the testator and the suit premises bequeathed in favour of his two sons, namely, Shri Shakti Dogra, the defendant No.1 and late Shri Ravinder Dutt Dogra, husband of the defendant No.2. It is submitted that in case the plaintiff had disclosed the factum of the execution of the duly registered Will of late Shri Sohan Lal in favour of the defendant No.1 and late husband of the defendant No.2, there would have been no occasion for this Court to pass the order dated against the defendants. The restraint order having been obtained by concealment of material facts was thus liable to be vacated with heavy costs. 6. It is next contended that the interim order dated is liable to be vacated also on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC by the plaintiff. In the present case, vide order dated , the plaintiff was granted one week s time to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which required the plaintiff to intimate the defendants with regard to the passing of the restraint order along with a set of the plaint, applications and other documents on which the plaintiff relied by registered post/speed post within one week from the date of the passing of the order and to file within the prescribed period of time an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid had been so delivered or sent.

3 However, in the present case, no notice was either received by the defendants or dispatched by the plaintiff or his counsel intimating the defendants with regard to the passing of the restraint order dated The defendants had inspected the Court file and no affidavit had been filed by the plaintiff nor any postal receipts or intimation letter had been placed on record to show that the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC had been complied with by the plaintiff. 7. The defendants/applicants assert that till date they have not received any notice or intimation from the plaintiff or his counsel intimating them about the restraint order dated and the said order is, therefore, liable to be vacated on this ground alone. The defendants were not aware of the passing of the order dated till , i.e., when defendant No.3 received summons from the Court. Thus, the defendants have been prejudiced by the non-intimation of the ad interim injunction order and noncompliance of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC whereby the defendants were precluded from seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim order operating against them for more than two months from the passing of the said order. The defendant Nos.1 and 2/applicants allege that till date they have not been served with the summons in the suit, but came to know about the same from the defendant No.3. Thus, the prayer made in the present application for vacation of the interim injunction ought to be granted. The defendants/applicants in this context relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, AIR 2000 SC 3032 and the judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Moserbaer India Ltd. vs. Modern Cinema, 2010 IV AD (DELHI) The defendants/applicants also seek vacation of the interim injunction order on the ground that the suit is even otherwise liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in view of the fact that the suit property has been grossly undervalued by the plaintiff who has not paid the ad valorem Court fees in respect of the suit property. 9. In reply to the aforesaid application, the plaintiff/non-applicant submitted that no Will had been executed by late Shri Sohan Lal as alleged or at all and that the signature on the so-called Will of late Shri Sohan Lal is a totally forged signature. The plaintiff had an extremely congenial relationship with his father and had made great sacrifices for the family and as such there was no question of his being excluded from the Will of his father late Shri Sohan

4 Lal. The Will was a forged and fabricated document prepared with a malafide intention of misappropriating the rightful share of the plaintiff. As regards the valuation of the suit property, the plaintiff/non-applicant submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the suit property had been undervalued by the plaintiff and the plaintiff/non-applicant was ready to make up the deficiency in Court fees, if found to be deficient by the Court. On the aspect of non-compliance of the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, it was submitted that the plaintiff had fully complied with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC by filing the process fee/registered cover for issuance of the notice the very next day in the Registry and it was the job of the concerned official in the Registry to do the needful and the plaintiff had nothing to do in the case, once steps had been taken by the plaintiff. 10. From the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no manner of doubt that the plaintiff/non-applicant failed to comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. The said provision reads as under:- 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party. The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. 11. There is not even an assertion by the plaintiff that after obtaining an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants, the plaintiff delivered to the defendants/applicants or sent to them by registered post within one week

5 a copy of the application for injunction together with a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application, a copy of the plaint and copies of the documents on which the plaintiff relied upon. There is also no assertion that the plaintiff/non-applicant within one week of the day on which the ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid had been delivered or sent to the defendants. On the contrary, there is a clear admission by the plaintiff that only process fee and registered covers were filed in the Registry and nothing else was sent or filed besides these. The filing of process fee and registered covers in this Court is for service of summons/notice upon the defendants and though a requirement of law is not sufficient in itself, if the plaintiff wants to avail of the benefits of an ex parte ad interim injunction order, which, as delineated at length hereinabove, is an exception to the ordinary rule that injunction ought not to be granted ex parte, there is no escape from complying with the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and that too within the stipulated period. 12. That the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC are of a mandatory nature has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court went so far as to lay down that an order granting ex parte ad interim injunction order can be deemed to contain the requirements set out in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC by implication even if they are not stated in so many words. It was further laid down that if a party, in whose favour an order was passed ex parte, fails to comply with the duties which he has to perform as required by the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC, he must take the risk. Non-compliance with such requisites on his part cannot be allowed to go without any consequence and to enable him to have only the advantage of it. The consequence of the party, who secured the order, for not complying with the duties he is required to perform is that he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such order if the order is not obeyed by the other party. A disobedient beneficiary of an order cannot be heard to complain against any disobedience alleged against another party. The logic behind this apparently is that the plaintiff who obtains ex parte ad interim injunction order should, at the earliest point in time, and at any rate not later than the time granted to him by the Court, deliver to the party in the manner prescribed by Rule 3A of Order XXXIX CPC all the documents on the basis of which such injunction was granted in his favour and against the opposite party. This is to enable the opposite party if he so desires to approach the Court for vacation of such ex parte ad interim injunction order

6 granted against him and/or to bring to the notice of the Court facts which may not have been disclosed by the plaintiff to the Court at the time of the grant of the ex parte injunction order. 13. The rationale behind the introduction of Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Code has been lucidly discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. MCS, 1993 (3) SCC 161 as under:- The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said the Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where Court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party being of the opinion that the subject of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the Court shall record the reasons why an ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3 the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the Court about the gravity of the situation and Court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. We are quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the Court or the authorities concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such non-compliance therewith will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. The Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the other side under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have farreaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a

7 surplusage for all practical purposes. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not all. 14. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Muralidhar) in a recent order passed by His Lordship in the case titled AGI Logistics Inc & Anr. vs. Mr. Sher Jang Bhadhur & Anr., 2010 I AD (DELHI) 600 in paragraph 14 observed as under:- 14. If the Court were to take a lenient view and not insist on strict compliance with the mandatory requirement of Order XXIX Rule 3, then it would be possible for most plaintiffs to continue to enjoy an ad interim ex parte stay in their favour for any length of time and plead genuine mistake by their counsel for non-compliance. Numerous suits accompanied by applications seeking urgent ex parte reliefs are filed in our courts everyday. The court, on a perusal of the documents filed before it, forms a prima facie view for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction against the opposite party, even in the absence of the opposite party. The Court at that stage has no means of knowing what the version of the opposite party is. The court, therefore, makes such interim order both time bound and conditional. The condition is that there must be compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within the time specified by the court. Although Order XXXIX Rule 3(b) CPC requires the filing of an affidavit of compliance on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, this Court has been granting a longer time accounting for the fact that the certified copy of the order passed by the court may not be available on the same day or even on the next date. However, there is no question of the plaintiff not being required to comply with the mandatory requirement of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within the time granted by the Court. In the considered view of this Court, a strict compliance with the mandatory requirement of this provision must be insisted and any laxity shown to parties might well defeat the very purpose for which such provision has been inserted. 15. The aforesaid decision rendered in the case of AGI Logistics Inc (supra) was followed by another Bench of this Court in Moserbaer India Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the Court expressed full agreement with the view taken in the case of AGI Logistics Inc (supra) and wholly endorsed the same. Much prior to these decisions, in the case of S.B.L. Ltd. vs. Himalaya Drug Co., 1997 IV AD (DELHI) 757, a Division Bench of this Court while

8 considering the scope and ambit of the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Code had made the following apposite observations:- 34. Looking to the scheme of Order 39, CPC it is clear that ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex-parte. The opposite party must be noticed and heard before an injunction may be granted. Rule 3 carves out an exception in favor of granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by an obligation cast on the Court to record reasons for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Both the provisions are mandatory. The applicant gets an injunction without notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a) and (b) above said. 35. We may refer to several observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, 1993 (3) SCC 161 = III (1993) DLT 275 (SC). Though the observations have been, made primarily on the obligation of the Court to record the reasons but in our opinion they equally apply to the obligation cast on the applicant by the proviso. The provisions are mandatory 36. We are of the opinion that if the Court is satisfied of non-compliance by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso then on being so satisfied the Court which was persuaded to grant an ex parte-parte ad interim injunction confiding in the applicant that having been shown indulgence by the court he would comply with the requirements of the proviso, it would simply vacate the ex parte order of injunction without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing on the grant or otherwise on the order of injunction but biparte only. The applicant would be told that by this conduct (mis-conduct to be more appropriate) he has deprived the opponent of an opportunity of having an early or urgent hearing on merits and, therefore, the ex parte order of injunction cannot be allowed to operate any more. 16. This Court is clearly bound by the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Division Bench in the S.B.L. Ltd. case (supra). There is an admission in the instant case by the plaintiff of his failure to comply with the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX CPC after availing of the ex parte ad interim injunction order in his favour. The Court, therefore, is left with no choice except to vacate the ex parte order of injunction with the clarification that this is being done without expressing any opinion on

9 the merits of the case leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing bi-parte on the grant or otherwise of the order of injunction. Clearly, the defendants/applicants have been deprived by the misconduct/lapse of the plaintiff of having an early hearing on merits. The ex parte order of injunction cannot, therefore, be allowed to operate any longer. The interim order passed by the Court on hereby stands vacated. 17. IA No.13139/2011 is accordingly allowed. 18. List before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on July 05, 2012 Sd/- REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGE

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

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

More information

*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

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

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

More information

* 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. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

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

More information

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

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

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, 2015 + I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 VEENA KUMARI Through... Plaintiff Mr.D.S. Vohra, Adv.

More information

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

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

More information

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte #1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 222/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan with Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates versus MR RAJBIR JINDAL @ ORS...

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE 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 : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, Date of Judgment : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Date of Judgment : 16.02.2012 CRP 128/2004 and CM No. 85/2012 M/S R.S. BUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD. Through Mr. Prabhjit

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.07.2015 + CS(OS) 442/2013 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL)... Plaintiff Through: Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan & Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr.

More information

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

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

More information

Through Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar Adv. with Ms.Anupama Kaul, Adv.

Through Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar Adv. with Ms.Anupama Kaul, Adv. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment Reserved on: February 19, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: July 01, 2013 O.M.P. No.9/2012 DARPAN KATYAL...

More information

F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus.

F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus. F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2982/2015 MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus SUDHANSHU KUMAR & ANR. Through: None... Defendants

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

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 06 th November, 2017 J U D G M E N T

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 06 th November, 2017 J U D G M E N T $~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 563/2017 MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Ishanki Gupta with Mr.Harsh Vardhan, Advocates. versus SHAM LAL & ORS Through: None...

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.07.2016 + CS(COMM) 644/2016 ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR... Plaintiff... Defendants Advocates who

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 2206 of 2012 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE LPA 776 OF 2012, CMs No. 19869/2012 (stay), 19870/2012 (additional documents), 19871/2012 (delay) Judgment Delivered on 29.11.2012

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: RC.REV. 522/2011 & CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: RC.REV. 522/2011 & CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Date of Judgment: 07.3.2012 RC.REV. 522/2011 & CM Nos.22570-72/2011 ANIL KUMAR VERMA Through: Mr.Ashutosh, Advocate.... Petitioner

More information

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI $~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Date of Reserve: 5th July, Date of judgment: November 06, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Date of Reserve: 5th July, Date of judgment: November 06, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Date of Reserve: 5th July, 2007 Date of judgment: November 06, 2007 CS(OS) No.1440/2000 Mela Ram... Through: Plaintiff Ms.Sonia Khurana

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI)

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development Bank of India ( SIDBI) Review Petition No. 73/2013 (Arising out of Misc. Case No. 705/2013 In FAO 6/2013) IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Small Industries Development

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. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 + FAO(OS) 220/2015 & CM Nos.7502/2015, 7504/2015 SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) OF 2013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(s) OF 2013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10941-10942 OF 2013 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT LTD Respondent(s)

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS. versus. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS. versus. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #14 + CS(COMM) 799/2018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Suhasini Raina,

More information

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

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

More information

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) 6392/2007 & CM Appl.12029/2007 Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Decided on: 1st August, 2012 MOHD. ISMAIL Through:... Petitioner Mr.

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : 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. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 236/2017 ARUN JAITLEY versus Through:... Plaintiff Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocates. ARVIND KEJRIWAL

More information

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South 1 Court No. 1 HON BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF 2018 Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant Versus Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

More information

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

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

More information

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Decision : December 3, 2012 CS(OS) 1785/2010 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ajay

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, 2016 + CS(OS) No.2934/2011 J.C BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED & ANR... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Ms.Vaishali

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. THEPIRATEBAY.ORG AND ORS... Defendants Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. THEPIRATEBAY.ORG AND ORS... Defendants Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #21 + CS(COMM) 777/2018 UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ORS... Plaintiffs Through Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Ms. Suhasini Raina and Ms. Disha Sharma,

More information

Reserved on: 3 rd February, 2010 Pronounced on: 4 th February, 2010

Reserved on: 3 rd February, 2010 Pronounced on: 4 th February, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C.1761/2009 Reserved on: 3 rd February, 2010 Pronounced on: 4 th February, 2010 # KAMAL GOYAL.... Petitioner! Through: Mr.Vikas Mahajan & Mr.Vishal Mahajan,

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 +CM Nos.7694-95/2010 (for restoration of CM No.266/2010 and for condonation of delay in applying for the same) in W.P.(C) 4165/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd June,

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 + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS AND. Through Ex parte

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS AND. Through Ex parte $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Ajay Sahni with Ms.Kritika Sahni, Advocates. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2798/2011 % 19 th October, 2015 SH. SUSHIL YADAV AND ANR. Through: None.... Plaintiffs Versus M/S VALLEY VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.... Defendants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 Judgment reserved on : 19.08.2008 Judgment delivered on : 09.01.2009 STR Nos. 5/1989 THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX... Appellant

More information

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

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

More information

$~ * 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 + CS(COMM) 1290/2016 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & ANR... Plaintiffs Through: Mr Karan Bajaj with Ms Kripa Pandit and Mr Dhruv Nayar, Advocates versus GLACIER WATER

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + Date of Decision: % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos /2015. versus. $~26. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 04.12.2015 % RSA 417/2015 & C.M. Nos.29313-14/2015 SHIV KUMAR... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sehgal, Mr. Om Prakash and Mr. Lalit Kumar

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) No.70/2015 % 23 rd December, 2015 MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus MR. SUJAN KUMAR & ORS. Through:...Defendants

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010 % Date of decision: 6 th December, 2010 SRISHTI SOLKAR & ANR. Through:... Petitioners Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL

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

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS.

III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. III (2014) CLT 5B (CN) (AP) ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. YARLAGUNTA BHASKAR RAO & ORS. Petitioners versus BOMMAJI DANAM & ORS. Respondents CRP No. 4099 of 2013 Decided on 26.9.2013

More information

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

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

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. 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. Judgment delivered on: IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Suit For Permanent Injunction Judgment delivered on: 22.04.2008 IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005 IA.No. 5271/2006 (u/o 6 R 17 CPC)

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

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

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

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28 th January, 2011. + I.A. Nos.3714/2004 & 2051/2005 (both u/o 39 R 1& 2 CPC) & I.A. No.8355/2010 (u/o 3 R IV(2) for discharge of counsel for

More information

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 156/2014. versus

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 156/2014. versus $~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 156/2014 RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL Through: versus ROSHAN JAHAN BEGAM & ANR Through:... Appellant Ms. Ashu Arora, Adv.... Respondents Mr. Z.A. Khan and Mr.

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

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned

Date of CAV : Pronounced on 11/2/2014. appellants against the order dated passed by Learned IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc Appeal No. 224 of 2011 Abdul Hamid and others... Appellants State of Jharkhand and others Versus Respondents Coram : HON BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. RESERVED ON : March 20, DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION RESERVED ON : March 20, 2008 DATE OF DECISION : April 2, 2008 LPA No. 665/2003 and CM Nos.4204/2004 and 6054/2007 JAGMAL (DECEASED)

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 367/2007. Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 367/2007. Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure FAO (OS) 367/2007 Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 EUREKA FORBES LTD. & ANR.... Appellants Through : Mr. Valmiki Mehta,

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Pronounced on: versus -...Respondent THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Pronounced on: 19.01.2011 + Test.Cas. 75/2008 Smt. Geeta Devi Goel.. Petitioner - versus - State...Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016 % 28 th November, 2017 1. CS(COMM) No.421/2016 M/S VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 CM(M) 374/2008 with CM Nos. 4286/2008 and 13305/2008 Reserved on : March 04, 2009 Date of Decision : March 17th, 2009 POONAM

More information

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

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

More information

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications

RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil) 248 of 2007 PETITIONER: Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum & Ors. RESPONDENT: D.S. Mathur, Secretary,Department of Telecommunications DATE OF JUDGMENT:

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ORS... Defendants Through None

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ORS... Defendants Through None $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #15 + CS(COMM) 21/2019 BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through Ms. Mamta R. Jha with Mr. Vipul Tiwari and Ms. Shipra Philip, Advocates

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.458/2008. Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.458/2008 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 MUKESH KUMAR DECD. THR. LR'S and ANR.... Appellants Through: Mr.K.G.Chhokar,

More information

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberai with Mr. Aman Singh, Advs. Versus

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberai with Mr. Aman Singh, Advs. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 2nd July, 2014 FAO(OS) 178/2014 & CM No.6231/2014 (for stay) SMT SUMITRA PARASHAR & ANR... Appellants Through:

More information

W.P.(C) 6328/2013 & CM No.13822/2013

W.P.(C) 6328/2013 & CM No.13822/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT Judgment reserved on: 24.10.2013/25.10.2013 Date of Decision: 08.11.2013 W.P.(C) 6328/2013 & CM No.13822/2013 M/S STEEL

More information

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J U D G M E N T

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J U D G M E N T * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL.) No.807 of 2014 Reserved on: 09.07.2014 Pronounced on:16.09.2014 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE... Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person with Ms. Suman

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010. Reserved on:18th May, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010. Reserved on:18th May, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl. M.C. No. 377/2010 & Crl. M.A. 1296/2010 Reserved on:18th May, 2011 Decided on: 8th July, 2011 JAGMOHAN ARORA... Petitioner

More information

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 1468/2016 & I.A.No.1532/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 02 nd November, 2017

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 1468/2016 & I.A.No.1532/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 02 nd November, 2017 $~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1468/2016 & I.A.No.1532/2017 KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H. with Mr.Kumar Chitranshu, Advocates. versus MR

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1307/2016 M/S. KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL... Plaintiff Through Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman with Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates versus

More information

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018 $~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018 + CM (M) 283/2016 M/S KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla & Mr. Ajay Amitabh

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Advocate * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2348/2014 IN THE MATTER OF: ALKA KASANA Reserved on: 14.07.2015 Date of decision: 24.08.2015... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate with Mr.

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. % Date of decision: 20 th May, Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 20 th May, Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20 th May, 2014. + FAO(OS) 233/2014, CM No.8270/2014 (for stay) and CM No.8271/2014 (for condonation of 116 days delay in filing the appeal)

More information

ORDER. Between. In re :

ORDER. Between. In re : In re : KERALA CONGRESS, a recognised State Party in the State of Kerala - Merger of the party with KERALA CONGRESS (M), a recognised State Party in the State Kerala. Between Shri P. J. Joseph...(Pro-merger

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP NO.6 OF 2017 1. SMTI. TETERI DEVI, Wife of Late Mohendra Harizon. 2. SHRI RAMANANDA HARIZON, Son of Late Mohendra

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2764 OF 2015 The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Others.. Petitioners. V/s. Union of India & Others.. Respondents.

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 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 + WP(C) No.235/2000 % Date of decision: 3 rd March, 2010 DULI CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr. Pravin Sharma, Advocate. versus P.O.LABOUR COURT-VIII & ANR. Through:

More information