IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. IPA No.15/2005. Date of decision : November 20, Vs.
|
|
- Ezra Austin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IPA No.15/2005 Date of decision : November 20, 2007 Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and Ors Through: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Advocate.... Plaintiffs Vs. Rajender Singh Saluja... Defendant Through: Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jaspreet S.Rai, Advocate. ANIL KUMAR, J. (Oral) IA No.3544/2007 The learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant states that another application under Order 6 Rule 17 has also been filed by the plaintiff and consequently she does not press the present application. Dismissed as not pressed. IA No.12297/ This is an application by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiffs/applicants contend that they have filed a suit for permanent injunction and maintenance against the defendants under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
2 3. According to the plaintiffs the defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and has categorically admitted his obligation to maintain the plaintiffs and has conceded his liability to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs. It is also disclosed that the defendant No.1 in order to establish his alleged bonafides has stated that he is paying Rs.20,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards maintenance. 4. According to the plaintiffs they have pleaded elaborately their entitlement for Rs.1.5 lakhs per month as maintenance and according to the plaintiffs they have set out material averments in respect thereto in the plaint, however, on account of an inadvertent error the prayer clause of the plaint does not specifically include a prayer for relief of maintenance of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month. Consequently, the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint by incorporating the prayer (aa) as detailed in para 7 of the application. The plaintiff consequently also seeks to amend the title of the plaint so as to incorporate the provisions of The protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which has been invoked on 17th October, 2006 as the Court is competent to exercise its power conferred under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, The plaintiff also wants to amend para 53 of the plaint so as to contend that the guest house built at property No.1/65, Ganga Ram Hospital Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi known as Hotel Royal Palace is entirely owned by him in place of the averment already made that the defendant No.1 owns 50% share in the guest house, as later on the plaintiffs came to know of the said fact and plaintiffs also want to incorporate para 53A to 53F incorporating averments regarding entitlement of the plaintiff for a maintenance of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month and the fact that the plaintiffs have insufficient means to pay the ad- valorum Court Fees on the suit which is valued at Rs.1,80,00,000/-. By incorporating para 53A to 53F the plaintiff wants to incorporate the facts that they are indigent persons with insufficient means to pay the Court fees. 6. Plaintiffs have contended that the application is bonafide and amendments proposed to the plaint by the plaintiffs are necessary for determination of real controversies between the parties. An affidavit has also been filed along with an application, however, in the affidavit dated 12th November, 2007 the application has been referred to as a reply. 7. The application is contested by the defendants contending that application is incompetent, wanting in bonafide and causes prejudice to the non applicant as the amendment sought are both unjust and unnecessary and the application has been moved not to correct an oversight or omission but only to sustain the suit by supplying a cause of action which has been missing in the plaint. According to the defendants in the written statement objection has been raised not only to absence of the prayer of maintenance but also to the non compliance of the provision of
3 Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, rejection of the application under Order 33 Rule 5 has been sought which is mandatory according to the defendants. The various allegations made by the plaintiffs on merits of the case have been emphatically denied by the defendants contending that the defendants have been meeting their obligations and has been regularly paying not only the school fees of his children but also the household expenses including the electricity and water consumed therein. 8. Along with the suit the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 being IA No.6240/2005 seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. According to the defendants this application is not verified in accordance with the requirement of Rule 2 of Order 33 which contemplates that the application should be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for signing and verification of pleadings. For signing and verification of the pleadings the learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr.Lekhi has relied on Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplating that the pleadings has to be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. According to the learned senior counsel,since the application under Order 33 to sue as an indigent person has not been filed in compliance with law by the plaintiffs, the application is liable to be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has also been contended that the affidavit filed with the application under Order 33 will not be valid for the amendment sought in the plaint and consequently the amendment cannot be allowed. The learned senior counsel has also emphasized relying on 1976(2) SCR 246 at page 257 that no material facts have been given by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for maintenance of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month and, therefore, the proposed amendment should not be allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Ms.Geeta Luthra has countered the pleas of the learned senior counsel for the defendants Mr.Lekhi contending that paras 18, 20, 34 and 40 of the plaint disclose cause of action and documents filed by the plaintiffs also show the cause of action in favor of plaintiffs and amendment has been sought in the plaint incorporating the pleas regarding the fact that the plaintiffs are indigent persons and seek to sue as indigent person and the plaint has been verified properly and is also supported by an affidavit and the list of properties of the plaintiffs are given in Schedule A which Schedule has also been verified. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also relied on MANU/DE/0419/1995 Jethu Ram Rice Mill Vs. Ashok Kumar Verma and Anr. to contend that Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not warrant technical but only proper compliance and an application along with the copy of the plaint should be deemed as properly framed which is supported by an affidavit. In case the annexed plaint is duly verified and the annexed Schedule of properties with the
4 value thereof have also been duly verified as true by the applicants, in such circumstances it should be deemed that it has been properly framed and duly verified. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs very emphatically contended that Order 33 does not warrant a meticulous hyper technical interpretation against a pauper applicant but only proper and substantial compliance by him. 10. The learned counsel has also relied on AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 115, Bommineni Laxmi Devamma Vs. Bommineni Konappa where a Division Bench of the A.P High Court had held that the requirement as contemplated under Order 33 Rule 5 relates to pleading and if the application does not conform to Rule 2 and 3 it cannot be treated as fatal, as Order 33 Rule 5 relates to procedure and is, therefore, directory and not mandatory and in such circumstances the application cannot out rightly be rejected as sometimes mistake may occur deliberately and sometimes accidentally. 11. The application under Order 33 filed by the plaintiffs being IA No.6240/2005 pleads the facts regarding the plaintiffs being indigent persons along with the Schedule of properties of the plaintiffs which has been duly verified. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff with a proper verification which verifies the facts stated in the application. A Division Bench of this Court in Jethu Ram Rice Mill (Supra) had held that Order 33 Civil Procedure Code does not warrant technical but only proper compliance. An application filed under Order 33 of Code of Civil Procedure according to the plaintiff must incorporate all the particulars as required in the suit along with the schedule of movable and immovable properties belonging to the applicant and should be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for signing and verification of the pleadings. 12. It has been held that an application filed with a copy of the plaint is also a properly framed application though the particulars of the plaint are not specifically incorporated in the application. An application under the Code of Civil Procedure is normally not to be verified but Order 33 contemplates that the application should be verified as it is also to contain particulars required in regard to plaint in the suit. In case the application contains particulars required in regard to plaint in suit then such an application, in compliance with Order 33 Rule 2, should be verified but where along with an application a plaint is filed separately which contains the particulars of the plaint with verification, such an application may not require verification as it will be too technical an interpretation of the rule. In any case the rule is directory and not mandatory as has been held by a Division Bench of A.P High Court in Bommineni Laxmi Devamma (Supra) as it relates to procedure and in a welfare state the poverty should not come in the way of person for enjoyment of his right to sue as an indigent person and a beneficial provision like Order 33 cannot be negated on such hyper technical interpretations. The object behind Order
5 33 Rule 2 for verification of the application is that the facts which are to be pleaded in the plaint,if are pleaded in the application, then they should be properly verified, however, if the plaint is filed separately along with an application and the facts stated in the plaint have been verified then the application even though it is not verified shall be maintainable and cannot be rejected under Order 33 Rule 5 as contended by the learned counsel, Mr.Lekhi for the defendants. 13. Consequently, the plea of the learned counsel for the defendants that since the application under Order 33 is not maintainable, the plaint filed along with the application will also be not maintainable and the amendment to such plaint can not be allowed is rejected. 14. The plaintiff has sought amendment in the plaint by incorporating the facts pleaded in the application about their indigent status in the proposed amended plaint which has been properly verified. They also want to include the prayer regarding claim of maintenance of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the defendants which was left inadvertently by them though various paras show that the plaintiffs have pleaded material facts seeking claim of maintenance from the defendant No The learned counsel for the defendants have also relied on Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to contend that the amount of maintenance to be awarded to a wife, children is to be based on various factors which are detailed in para 23(2) and (3) of the said Act. According to the learned counsel for the defendants since the plaint does not disclose these facts the amendment should not be allowed. 16. The plaintiffs contention, however, is that the material facts entitling the plaintiffs for maintenance are already pleaded in the plaint and in any case further clarifications are given in paras 53A to 53F which are sought to be included by the proposed amendment. 17. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down in various precedents. This is no more res integra that the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just but it is equally true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. However, the Courts while deciding prayer for amendment should not adopt a hyper technical approach and liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. It is also no more res integra that pretrial amendments are allowed more
6 liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of trial or after conclusion thereof. Mere delay usually cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment because merits of amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendments are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. The Apex Court in G. Nagamma v. Siromanamma, (1996) 2 SCC 25, at page 26 had held that it is settled law that the plaintiff is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case, the plaintiff were seeking alternative reliefs. The application for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action could change nor the relief could be materially affected, was allowed. In another case, AIR 1995 SC 1498, Akshay Restaurant Vs. Panjanappa and others the matter pertained to amendment of plaint and the application for amendment was allowed though different stands were taken by the plaintiff. 18. This cannot be disputed that the plaintiff is entitled to incorporate the relief to claim maintenance in the suit already filed by the plaintiff as the facts have already been pleaded and the claim has not become barred by time and no other impediment has been shown by the defendants to allow the amendment of the plaint incorporating the relief for maintenance. Whether the plaintiffs shall be entitled to the claim of maintenance on the basis of the facts already disclosed in the plaint and which are sought to be incorporated by amending para 53 and incorporating paras 53A to 53F is not to be decided at the time of deciding whether the amendment should be allowed or not. 19. This also can not be disputed that the amendment proposed to the plaint which is filed along with the application to sue as indigent persons are material and relevant for the determination of real controversies between the parties. The application to sue as indigent person is maintainable though it is not verified because the particulars of plaint/pleadings have not been incorporated in the application but a separate plaint has been filed which has also been verified and on this ground the amendment proposed to the plaint can not be declined. The suit is still at a pretrial stage, as even the indigent status of the plaintiffs has not yet been determined. No prejudice shall also be caused to the defendants in the facts and circumstances, if the amendment sought by the plaintiffs is allowed. 20. Consequently the application of the plaintiffs seeking amendment to the plaint is allowed and the plaintiffs are allowed to amend the plaint incorporating the amendments proposed in the application for the amendment under order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, no cost is imposed for allowing amendment on the plaintiffs in the present facts and circumstances and also because the plaintiffs in this case are seeking to sue as indigent persons. Parties are also left to bear their own costs for the application for amendment. Amended plaint be filed.
7 IPA No.15/2005 The amended plaint already filed by the plaintiffs is taken on record. The learned counsel for the defendants seek time to file the written statements/reply. The same be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder/replication, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on Sd/- ANIL KUMAR J.
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. % 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 informationIN 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 informationTHE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018
AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 01.08.18 Bill No. 123-C of 18 THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 18 A BILL to amend the Commercial Courts,
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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. + 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* 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2008 M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd.... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ganesh Property... Respondent(s) J U D G M
More informationIN 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 informationTHE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018
AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 123 of 2018 5 THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELLATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018 A BILL to amend the Courts, Division
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Decision : March 14, A.A. No.23/2007. Versus. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Date of Decision : March 14, 2008 A.A. No.23/2007 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Garg Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate... Petitioner
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, versus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No.1737/2012 % 18 th January, 2016 SH. SURENDER KUMAR... Plaintiff Through Mr. Manoranjan and Mr.Kailash Sharma, Advocates versus SH. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. AA No.396/2007. Date of decision: December 3, Vs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 AA No.396/2007 Date of decision: December 3, 2007 AKG Associates Through: Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate....Petitioner
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 61 days in refiling
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2711/2015 % 28 th October, 2015 SH. DEEPAK AGGARWAL Through:... Plaintiff Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus SH. RAJ GOYAL AND ORS. Through:... Defendants
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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
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....
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 Date of Reserve: April 07, 2015 Date of Decision:July 31, 2015 JASBIR SINGH LAMBA & ORS... Plaintiffs Through
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS(OS) No.2397/2006 and IA No.7807/07 (S.151 CPC by Def.1and2 ) Date of decision:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CS(OS) No.2397/2006 and IA No.7807/07 (S.151 CPC by Def.1and2 ) Date of decision: 06.11.2007 SUKHBIR SHOKEN... PLAINTIFF
More information1. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying inter alia for permission to amend the written statement.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.8998/2012 (by the defendant u/o VI R 17 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1342/2011 Reserved on: 27.08.2012 Date of decision: 10.01.2013
More informationThrough: 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 informationVijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another... on 19 January, 1962
Supreme Court of India Vijay Pratap Singh vs Dukh Haran Nath Singh And Another... on 19 January, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 941, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 675 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER:
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
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
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8320 Of 2011 SRI MAHABIR PROSAD CHOUDHARY...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. OCTAVIUS TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR....RESPONDENT(S)
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationThrough : 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 informationIN 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- versus - 1. The following reliefs have been claimed in this
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment Reserved on: 01.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 18.03.2011 I.A. No. 14803/2010 in CS(OS) No. 1943/1998 Sita Kashyap & Anothers..
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY. W.P (C ) No /2006. Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CONDONATION OF DELAY W.P (C ) No. 16041/2006 Judgment reserved on: October 19, 2006 Judgment delivered on: November 8, 2006 B. MURALI KRISHNAN.... Petitioner
More informationVidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006
Supreme Court of India Vidyawati Gupta & Ors vs Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors on 3 February, 2006 Author: A Kabir Bench: B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3005 of 2005 PETITIONER: Vidyawati
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003 Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2006 ESS VEE TRADERS & OTHERS... Petitioners versus M/S AMBUJA CEMENT RAJASTHAN LIMITED...
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 236/2017 ARUN JAITLEY versus Through:... Plaintiff Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocates. ARVIND KEJRIWAL
More information.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004
.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA
More informationWRIT PETITION NO OF Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus
Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2018 Dr. Madhav Vishwanath Dawalbhakta (Decd) through LRs. Dr. Nitin M. Dawalbhakta & Ors. Versus
More informationHIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION No. 451fRuiesIDHC Dated: 25.11.2010 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1966) and all other powers
More information$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 PRADIP BURMAN Represented by: Versus... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.
More informationTHE 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 informationLakshmi & Anr vs Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009
Supreme Court of India Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT MATTER Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 W.P.(C) No.1343/1998.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : APPOINTMENT MATTER Date of decision: 11th July, 2012 W.P.(C) No.1343/1998 SRI GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA POST GRADUATE EVENING COLLEGE Through: None....
More informationIN 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. % 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NDPS ACT. Date of Decision: November 13, W.P.(C).No.23810/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NDPS ACT Date of Decision: November 13, 2006 W.P.(C).No.23810/2005 Ravi Sharma... PETITIONER Through: Mr.Harjinder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Vandana
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Reserved on : Date of decision :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Reserved on : 05.02.2009 Date of decision : 10.02.2009 Crl.M.C. 2296/2008 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. and ORS. Through: Petitioners
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8538 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2010) Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr.. Appellants Versus Chakiri
More informationSri J. Prakash vs Smt. M.T. Kamalamma And Anr. on 12 October, 2007
Karnataka High Court Karnataka High Court Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 Kant 26, ILR 2007 KAR 4752, 2008 (2) KarLJ 202 Author: S A Nazeer Bench: S A Nazeer JUDGMENT S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. In this case,
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE. CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No /2009(Stay)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINA PROCEDURE CRL.REV.P. 523/2009 & Crl. M.A. No. 10941/2009(Stay) Reserved on: 17th February, 2012 Decided on: 1st March, 2012 YASHPAL KUMAR
More information* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7262/2014 Pronounced on: 03.02.2015 PRINCE KUMAR & ORS.... Appellant Through: Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Tarun Kumar Tiwari, Mr.Mukesh Sukhija, Ms.Rupali
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1590-1591 OF 2013 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.6652-6653 of 2013) Anil Kumar & Ors... Appellants
More informationIII (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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA (OS) No. 20/2002. Reserved on : 31st July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA (OS) No. 20/2002 Reserved on : 31st July, 2008 Decided on : 8th August, 2008 MANSOOR MUMTAZ and ORS. Through : Mr. S.D. Ansari,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :SERVICE MATTER WP(C) No.8133/2011 & CM No.2004/2012 Date of Decision:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :SERVICE MATTER WP(C) No.8133/2011 & CM No.2004/2012 Date of Decision: 14.02.2012 Deepak Kumar Through Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate. Petitioner versus Union
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Motor Vehicles Act, MAC App. No.466/2008 and CM No.12015/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 MAC App. No.466/2008 and CM No.12015/2008 Judgment reserved on:16th October, 2008 Judgment delivered on: 5th November, 2008 M/s
More informationCONTEMPT 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. 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 + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS AND. Through Ex parte
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015 GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Ajay Sahni with Ms.Kritika Sahni, Advocates. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Date of Judgment: 28.4.2011 RSA No.251/2008 & CM Nos.17860/2008 & 11828/2010 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD..Appellant Through: Mr.P.K.Seth,
More informationIn the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. I.A. No. of 2013 In Civil Suit Number 2439/2012. The Chancellor, Master And Scholars Of The University
In the Matter of: In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi I.A. No. of 2013 In Civil Suit Number 2439/2012 The Chancellor, Master And Scholars Of The University Of Oxford And Ors... Plaintiffs Versus Rameshwari
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ERNEST MANENO SHIJA VERSUS MAZINGA CORPORATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Date of last Order: 19/09/2006 Date of Ruling: 06/11/2007 Mlay, J. Mzinga Corporation is
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3725-3726 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of2011] H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 99 OF 1997 Judgment reserved on: July 31, 2007 Judgment delivered
More information$~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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2009 JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD APPELLANT VERSUS DIDAR SINGH & ANR. RESPONDENTS N.V. RAMANA, J. JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Through : Mr.Harvinder Singh with Ms. Sonia Khurana, Advs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (C) No.5260/2006 Reserved on : 23.10.2007 Date of decision : 07.11.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : RAM AVTAR...Petitioner Through
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : IMC ACT, 1956 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 4223/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : IMC ACT, 1956 Date of Decision: 11.07.2013 W.P.(C) 4223/2013 VENKATESHWARA UNIVERSITY... Petitioner Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocates
More informationIN 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 informationState Of A.P vs V. Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 November, 2006
Supreme Court of India State Of A.P vs V. Sarma Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 November, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1136 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of A.P.
More information*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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9118-9119 OF 2010 Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of decision: 6th December, 2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTION (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of decision: 6th December, 2013. RFA 439/2008 SUDHIR KHANNA Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.... Appellant
More informationMr. 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 informationI have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my. esteemed learned brother, Hon ble Justice Shri S.B. Sinha,
TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI DATED 18 th JULY, 2011 Petition No. 275 (C) of 2009 Reliance Communications Limited.. Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited..... Respondent
More informationIN 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 informationTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 06.01.2016 + W.P.(C) 2927/2013 AGSON GLOBAL PVT LTD & ORS... Petitioners versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ORS... Respondents Advocates
More informationRESPONDENT: 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 informationJ 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. CM(M) No. 932/2007 and CM(M) No. 938/2007 RESERVED ON: 4.12.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION CM(M) No. 932/2007 and CM(M) No. 938/2007 RESERVED ON: 4.12.2007 DATE OF DECISION: 7.12.2007 Arti Arora... Through: Petitioner Mr.
More informationIN 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 + 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: January 03, 2007 WP(C) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Order Reserved on: 29.11.2006 Date of Decision: January 03, 2007 WP(C) No.6327/1999 Harpal... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate
More informationPrem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007
Supreme Court of India Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 2 February, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 446 of 2007 PETITIONER:
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos /2011. Versus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988 Date of Judgment: 22.03.2011 RSA No.53/2011 & CM. Nos. 5887-88/2011 MANOJ GUPTA Through: Mr.P.N.Dham, Advocate...Appellant
More informationCRP 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