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

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment reserved on : 25th May, 2006 Date of decision : July 27th, 2006 RFA No. 139/2005 Sh. Ajay Kumar Grover... Appellant through : Mr. Rajeev Tyagi with Mr. Himanshu Mitra, Advocates. Bank of Baroda and Ors....Respondents through : Mr. Tariq Muneer, Advocate. Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate. CORAM: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA S.L. BHAYANA, J. 1. This is an appeal arising out of the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated wherein the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend the suit and has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff bank filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 for a sum of Rs.7,39,866/-. The respondent/plaintiff bank has alleged that respondent No.2 M/s. Arun Sales Corporation is a partnership firm and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the appellant are its partners. It is further the case of the plaintiff bank that respondent No.2 firm had been dealing in all kinds of electronics and mechanical instruments. The respondent firm was maintaining the overdraft account No with the plaintiff bank. It is further the case of the plaintiff bank that the respondent No.5, P.K. Khurana stood as guarantor to the repayment of the loan against overdraft facility granted to the respondent firm. It is the case of the plaintiff bank that on the request of respondent No.2 firm, overdraft facility of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned on The respondents No.2 to 5 and the appellant executed the loan documents. The respondent No.2 to 5 and the appellant also deposited the original title deed of property bearing No.34C, Pocket A, Vikaspuri, New Delhi with the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, a request was received from the respondents for enhancement of the overdraft facility and consequently, the facility was enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-

2 on After availing the overdraft facility of Rs.6,00,000/-, defendants failed to pay the amount to the plaintiff bank. Consequently, the plaintiff bank filed a suit in the sum of Rs.7,39,866/- against the defendants. The summons for judgment were served on all the defendants. All the defendants moved an application for leave to defend under Order 37 sub-clause 5. However, all the defendants admitted in the application that the overdraft facility was advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendants and the said facility was enjoyed by the defendants as well as its partners. The application moved by all the defendants was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by impugned order and decreed the suit of the plaintiff bank. 2. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and have perused the record carefully. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has not applied its mind while dismissing the application of the appellant for leave to defend the suit. He has further submitted that the appellant has raised triable issue before the learned trial court but the learned trial court did not appreciate the same while dismissing the application of the appellant for leave to defend the suit. He has further submitted that respondent No.1 bank cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrongs and respondent Nos.3 to 5 cannot be allowed to go scot-free despite their having mis appropriated the hypothecated / pledged assets of respondent No.1 bank in connivance with the officials of the respondent No.1 bank. He has further submitted that the learned trial court ignored the fact that had the respondent No.1 bank proceeded against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 by recovering the amount from the proceeds of the hypothecated / pledged assets, it alone would have been sufficient to satisfy the entire claim of the respondent No.1 bank but the respondent No.1 bank did not take any action in this regard and did not act against the hypothecated / pledged assets with the bank as the officials of the respondent No.1 bank were hand in glove with respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the attitude of the officials of the respondent No.1 bank necessitated filing of the present suits against all the defendants including the appellant. All these issues are triable issues which have been raised by the appellant before the learned trial court but the learned trial court has ignored the same and has dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend and has decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 bank. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court should be set aside and the appellant should be given a chance to defend the suit on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has not denied that he is partner of the firm. The appellant has not denied that the firm had availed the overdraft facility from the bank. The appellant has also not denied that the respondents were granted overdraft facility of Rs.4,00,000/- initially on It was enhanced to Rs.6,00,000/- later on i.e. on The appellant and the respondents have not denied the signing of the documents in favour of the plaintiff bank with regard to the repayment of the overdraft facility i.e. demand promissory note, letter of continuing security, letter of undertaking, instrument of hypothecation of goods, letter of authority, general undertaking and general form of guarantee. The appellant and other respondents have also not denied having utilized the overdraft facility from the respondent No.1 bank. The counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the issues raised by the appellant are not relevant for the determination of the controversy in suit. The issues raised by the appellant and the

3 respondents partners and guarantors have been raised on account of their internal differences with each other. The counsel for the respondent bank has further submitted that it is the prerogative of the respondent bank to choose the method of recovery of the amount from its debtors. The respondent No.1 bank has filed the suit after giving legal notice to the appellant and all the other defendants when they failed to make the payment. 3. Counsel for the plaintiff bank has further submitted that the plea raised by the appellant and other defendants that the bank officials got signed blank documents from them is no defence in the eyes of law and these issues raised by the appellant and other defendants are sham and moon shine and these issues are not triable issues and, therefore, their application for leave to defend has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. 4. We have gone through the record. We have also gone through the application for leave to defend moved by the appellant before the learned trial court under Order 37 rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the entire application, the appellant has nowhere denied that the overdraft facility was not availed by the firm in which he was a partner. The appellant has only submitted that the other defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are responsible for bungling in the firm and they have siphoned off the money of the firm and had defrauded the bank. It shows that there was internal fighting between the appellant and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 who are partners in the firm. The appellant has not denied the sanction of overdraft facility to the defendant firm. The appellant has admitted that the overdraft facility was availed by the defendant No.1 firm. He has alleged that the other partners had siphoned off the funds of the firm illegally and unauthorisedly in collusion with the officials of the plaintiff bank. The appellant has also submitted in the said application that Sh. O.P. Verma, Manager was not posted there when the loan was granted and is not aware of the facts of the case. He has also stated that no power of attorney from the Board of Directors of the plaintiff bank was given to Mr. Rupert A. Almeida nor the same had been filed alongwith the plaint. All these issues raised by the appellant are neither triable issues nor they go to the root of the case. Rather, the issues raised by the appellant are only frivolous in nature. It is admitted case of both the parties that the overdraft facility was granted by the plaintiff bank to the defendant No.1 firm of which the appellant is one of the partners. It is also admitted case of both the parties that at the time of availing the overdraft facility, the appellant and other respondents who are the partners of the firm had signed various documents which included demand promissory note, letter of continuing security, letter of undertaking, instrument of hypothecation of goods, letter of authority, general undertaking and general form of guarantee. It is also admitted case of both the parties that the overdraft facility was availed by the defendant No.1 firm and despite legal notice sent to them, the appellant and the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount advanced to them by the plaintiff bank. If the issues raised by the appellant are not substantial, the appellant is not entitled to be granted leave to defend by the court. This view find support from the judgment reported in 40 (1990) DLT 497 titled in Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. M/s. Ram Prakash Jagdish Chander and Ors. in which this court has held as under : The first point raised on behalf of the defendants is that as per the averments made in a plaint itself there is no allegation if at the time of initially taking the facilities from the plaintiff bank the defendants executed any documents. Initially the facilities were taken

4 in February, 1979 as alleged in para 3 of the plaint. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendants has urged that it was not possible to believe the plaintiff bank when in the plaint it is nowhere stated if any documents were executed at the time of initially taking the loan in This argument on the face of it seems to be quite plausible. In fact, as per the normal practice prevailing in banks, the loan facilities of any type are generally not granted to a party without the due execution of any document. However, the Court is not debarred from looking into subsequent circumstances. It is clearly alleged in para 7 of the plaint that at the request of the defendants the plaintiff bank had discounted two cheques dated March 28 and 31, 1980 in the name of defendant No.1 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Kalba Devi Road, Bombay for Rs.55,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively. The bank further stated that the proceeds of these two cheques so purchased by the plaintiff bank were credited to the cash credit account maintained in the name of defendant No.1 from where those amounts were withdrawn during the operation of the cash credit account by the defendants. The defendants do not say in their application that they did not withdraw these amounts from the cash credit account. The plaintiff bank has further stated in para-9 of the plaint that on November 19, 1982 when a sum of Rs.1.50, was due and payable by the defendants, in the cash credit account and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was due in the bill discounting facility account, the defendants 2 and 3 as partners of defendant No.1 executed various documents including the demand promissory note. In this respect the defendants do not deny if they did not offer for purchase the aforesaid two cheques to the plaintiff bank. They further admit that in November, 1982 they did sign certain printed proforma on assurances given by the then Manager of the plaintiff bank, when the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for grant of credit facilities. However, it is not stated what assurance was given to the defendants by the Manager. The defence that the defendant's signatures were obtained on blank proforma is not only untrustworthy but also does not raise any triable issue. Under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is provided that when a person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete instrument he gives prima facie authority to the holder of such an instrument to complete upon it a negotiable instrument for any amount which may be covered by the stamp affixed on it. The person so signing is made liable upon such an instrument in the capacity in which he signed it to any holder in due course. The defendants did not raise their little finger to point out if their signatures were obtained on any blank documents by the then Manager of the plaintiff bank. The present suit was filed in Till then the defendants chose to keep silent about their signatures having been obtained on blank documents. The only irrestible conclusion, therefore, is that the plea now sought to be raised by the defendants to the effect that their signatures were obtained on blank documents is merely a sham plea, devoid of any force and as such cannot be deemed to raise any triable issue. Therefore, simply because no documents were got executed by the plaintiff bank from the defendants in 1979 will not give rise to a presumption that even in 1982 that initial mistake was not rectified by the bank authorities when they purchased two cheques from the defendants for being credited in the bills discounting facility and also got executed the demand promissory note and other documents in the cash credit account facility. Therefore, I do not see any merit in this defence raised by the defendants. Another plea taken up by the defendants is that it is yet to be proved by the

5 plaintiff that the plaint has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised agent of the bank. Unless the burden of proof in that respect is discharged by the plaintiff bank, it is not entitled to grant of decree. To rebut this argument, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that Sh. Gajender Singh who has signed, verified and instituted this plaint as an attorney of the plaintiff, holds a valid power of attorney in his favour. Sh. Gajender Singh who has signed, verified and instituted this plaint as an attorney of the plaintiff, holds a valid power of attorney in his favour. Sh. Gajender Singh has sworn an affidavit in this respect in reply to the application filed by the defendants for leave to defend the suit. He categorically states in his affidavit that he not only holds a valid power of attorney in his favour to sign, verify and institute the plaint but the same has the force of a statutory regulation of which Court can take even judicial notice. He further swore in the affidavit that the power of attorney in his favour has been registered under the Registration Act. The plaintiff has also filed an authorization at page 46 of the documents filed in favour of S/Sh. Gajender Singh and H.S. Rana executed by Sh. Kulwant Singh, General Manager (Credit). It says that Sh. Kulwant Singh being authorised by Resolution No.1598 of the Board of Directors, authorised the aforesaid two officers jointly and severally to sign, verify the plaint and institute the present suit against the defendants. In order to be entitled to the grant of leave to defend, I am of the view that the defendants must satisfy the Court that they have a good defence to the claim on merits. This they should disclose by stating such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitled them to defend the suit. This plea raised by the defendants even otherwise is not a plea which affords him a defence to the claim on its merits filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank. If such a plea is accepted as one raising a triable issue or a good defence to the claim in suit then it will not be possible at all in any suit filed by any bank under Order 37 to grant a decree in its favour. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances under this head, I am of the view that this plea does not raise any triable issue. No other point was urged before me. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that this application does not raise any triable issue and the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of a decree under Order 37 CPC. Plaintiff is, therefore, granted a decree for recovery of Rs.3,95, with costs of the suit and pending and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the decretal amount. (Emphasis supplied) 5. This view also finds support from the observation made by this court in the judgment reported in?96 (2002) DLT 424 titled in Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs. Keshav Anand? it has been held as under : It cannot be gainsaid that there is no hard and fast rule for grant or refusal of leave to defend. Every case has to be decided or examined on its own facts. If the facts set up by the defendant fail to disclose substantial defence or raise triable issues, leave should normally be refused. If the facts set up by the defendant disclose such defence which has fair chances of success or has potential to dislodge the case of the plaintiff, then the defendant is entitled to leave to contest. Though it is the discretion of the Court either to refuse or grant leave and discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously. If the defendant tenor of defence raised by the defendant blows hot and cold and is self contradictory, he forfeits his right of leave to defend the suit. Nature of defence should be substantial and not frivolous. The plea of the defendant that his

6 signatures were obtained on blank papers is of beaten plea. Once a party executes a cash receipt, it binds itself by way of written contract. However, in the instant case, defendant has issued a cheque in favour of Palvinder Singh which itself show that he has taken a loan. On the same premise, defendant has no case which entitles him to leave to contest because of his having executed cash receipts. It appears that after having faced criminal proceedings initiated by Palvinder Singh, defendant did not issue cheques in favour of the plaintiffs against the loan taken by him. In these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to leave to contest on plea of chit fund and obtaining of his signatures by Palvinder Singh on blank papers etc. The application has no merit and is dismissed. As a consequence, suit is decreed for Rs.10,44,000/- with cost along with pendente lite and future 24% per annum till realisation. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of discussions made above, we are of the considered view that the defence raised by the appellant before the learned trial court is not substantial defence and is only a sham or a moon shine. The appellant has failed to convince us that he has raised any triable issues which can entitle him for unconditional or conditional leave to defend the suit. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Trial court record be sent back. File be consigned to record room. Sd/- (S.L.BHAYANA) JUDGE Sd/- (SWATANTER KUMAR) JUDGE

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

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

More information

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

$~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

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 SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on

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

More information

* 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

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DATE OF DECISION : 7th February, 2014 LA.APP. 632/2011 & CM No. 17689/2013 (for stay) SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS.... Appellants

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

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

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. 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 : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Date of Decision: CRL.A of 2013.

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

More information

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. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 99 OF 1997 Judgment reserved on: July 31, 2007 Judgment delivered

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY CS(OS) No.1177/2003 DATE OF DECISION :23rd July, 2012 MRS VEENA JAIN... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Advocate with Mr. Rahul

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment reserved on : 26.04.2011 Judgment delivered on : 28.04.2011 R.S.A.No. 109/2007 & CM No. 5092/2007 RAMESH PRAKASH

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. + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos /2015. versus. + RFA(OS) 77/2015 and CM No /2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos /2015. versus. + RFA(OS) 77/2015 and CM No /2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 04.03.2016 Pronounced on: 22.04.2016 + FAO(OS) 344/2015 and CM Nos. 11596-11597/2015 ROHIT TYAGI... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate.

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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. + 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 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

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 SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR 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 GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Case No: RSA 234/2015

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESH CARGO MOVERS AND CONSULTANTS... Appellant Through:

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO. AMENDED TITLE OF THE PLANT PURSUANT TO ORDER DT 16.9.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI (Original Civil jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions (Recovery Ordinance, 2001 SUIT NO. B-69 OF

More information

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

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

More information

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. 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

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No.200/2003. Reserved on 14th February, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No.200/2003 Reserved on 14th February, 2012 Pronounced on 2nd March, 2012 SHRI VED PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007. DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION RFA Nos. 601/2007 and 606/2007 DATE OF DECISION 10th February, 2012 1. RFA 601/2007 SHER SINGH Through: Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Advocate....

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

J U D G M E N T WITH C.A. No. 4455/2005 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

J U D G M E N T WITH C.A. No. 4455/2005 HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Supreme Court of India Makhan Singh (D) By Lrs vs Kulwant Singh on 30 March, 2007 Author: H S Bedi Bench: B.P. Singh, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4446 of 2005 PETITIONER: Makhan Singh (D)

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2015 + CM(M) 1155/2015 PURAN CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr.Arun Kumar and Mr.Udit

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

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

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

More information

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

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

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

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % 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 : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT. Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT. Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT Date of decision: 8th March, 2013 EFA(OS) 34/2012 HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr.

More information

Rumi Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2009 REPORTABLE. State of West Bengal and another

Rumi Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2009 REPORTABLE. State of West Bengal and another Supreme Court of India Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19516 of 2014] Sushil Thomas Abraham... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Skyline Build.

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. 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

Stay on Execution: When & How

Stay on Execution: When & How Stay on Execution: When & How by Rakesh Kumar Singh ************** Decade is a normal time period if one is to ask a plaintiff of a civil suit more particularly he who wants to get the possession of his

More information

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

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

More information

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012 Date of Reserve: April 07, 2015 Date of Decision:July 31, 2015 JASBIR SINGH LAMBA & ORS... Plaintiffs Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP. 76/2012 RAJINDER KUMAR Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.... Appellant

More information

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

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

More information

Bar & Bench (

Bar & Bench ( CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23 QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016 Complaint Case No. CC/230/2011 ( Date of Filing : 15 Jul 2011 ) 1. KHUSHAL KOLWAR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. 1165/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate....

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 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 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. 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 : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Delivered on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Judgment Delivered on: 14.02.2011 RSA No.39/2005 & CM No.1847/2005 SHRI NARAYAN SHAMNANI

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 419/2008 Date of Decision: 05th February, 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 419/2008 Date of Decision: 05th February, 2013. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 419/2008 Date of Decision: 05th February, 2013. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD... Decree Holder Through: Mr. Maninder Singh,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5177 OF 2009 Vijay A. Mittal & Ors..Appellant(s) VERSUS Kulwant Rai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. Respondent(s) J U D G M

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR Through: Appellant in person.... Appellant VERSUS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: RSA No.55/2009 & CM No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 06.04.2011 RSA No.55/2009 & CM No.6268/2009 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Through: Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate...Appellant

More information

Through: Sh. Mohit Chaudhary and Sh. A. Das, Advocates, for Review Petitioner.

Through: Sh. Mohit Chaudhary and Sh. A. Das, Advocates, for Review Petitioner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 18.12.2013 Pronounced on:20.12.2013 REV. PET. 293/2012, C.M. APPL. 8373/2012 (for stay) & C.M. APPL. 8374/2012 IN

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

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 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

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 15.11.2010 Judgment Pronounced on: 23.11.2010 + CS(OS) No. 1468/2001 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR... Plaintiff - versus - M/S MUKESH

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : DELHI LAND REFORMS ACT, 1954 RFA No.621/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 5th March, 2012 ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate with

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 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRL.M.C. NO. 2521/2011 Date of Decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRL.M.C. NO. 2521/2011 Date of Decision: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRL.M.C. NO. 2521/2011 Date of Decision: 14.03.2012 PRAKASH CHANDRA. PETITIONER Through: Mr.Abhik Kumar, Advocate with Mr.S.S.Ray,

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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: Versus CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2015 + RFA 563/2015 NITIN JAIN...APPELLANT Versus GEETA RAHEJA...RESPONDENT ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Appellant

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. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus -

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: versus - THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 30.11.2010 Judgment Pronounced on: 03.12.2010 + CS(OS) No. 241/2010 AJAY AHUJA & ANR... Plaintiff - versus - M/S SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES

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 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 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No of versus J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No of versus J U D G M E N T Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10863 of 2017 ABDULRASAKH.Appellant versus K.P. MOHAMMED & ORS... Respondents J U D G M E N T SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

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

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 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. Crl. Appeal No. 771/2007 and Crl.M.A.No.3111/07. Reserved on: Date of Decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Crl. Appeal No. 771/2007 and Crl.M.A.No.3111/07. Reserved on: Date of Decision: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Negotiable Instruments Act Crl. Appeal No. 771/2007 and Crl.M.A.No.3111/07 Reserved on: 09.10.2007 Date of Decision: 5.12.2007 Birender Singh State (NCT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 24, 2015 + W.P.(C) 6616/1998 VANDANA JHINGAN Through:... Petitioner Mr. J.P. Sengh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocate

More information