M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD been settled. It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has On joint request, put up for recording of settlement/ further proceedings on 05 05 2016. At this stage, date is changed to 06 05 2016 on the request of counsel for JD. DELHI:
Tejpal Vs. DDA Appellant in person with Sh. A. P. Singh, advocate Sh. Parduman Rai, advocate for respondent None for others Vakalatnama filed on behalf of appellant. On the request of counsel for appellant that he has been engaged today only, put up for purpose fixed on 30 08 2016. DELHI:
Jagriti Plastic Ltd. Vs. Sudershan Consolidated Ltd. Sh. Vijay Shankar, advocate for plaintiff None for defendant fixed on 03 08 2016. On the request of counsel for plaintiff, put up for purpose DELHI:
Ranvir Singh Vs. MCD Sh. Rahul Singh, son of P 1 in person with Sh. Sandeep Rana, advocate None for others Pass over of the matter is sought by the counsel for plaintiff. Record reveals that counsel for plaintiff was not present even on the last date of hearing. Put up for purpose fixed on 06 10 2016. DELHI:
Manish Garg Vs. Rajan Juneja None. 26 09 2016. Steps not taken. Put up for compliance of previous order by the plaintiff for DELHI:
Manish Garg Vs. Rajan Juneja None. 26 09 2016. Steps not taken. Put up for compliance of previous order by the plaintiff for DELHI:
Devender Vig Vs. Reliance Capital Petitioner in person Ms. Tanvi Talwar, advocate for respondent It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that she has not received copy of application. One spare copy is on record. The same is given to the counsel for respondent. On the request of counsel for respondent, put up for reply and arguments on the application on 06 10 2015. At this stage, date is changed to 07 10 2015 on the request of counsel for respondent. Copy of reply be supplied to the counsel for petitioner at least one month in advance. DELHI:
Devender Vig Vs. Reliance Capital Petitioner in person Ms. Tanvi Talwar, advocate for respondent It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that she has not received copy of application. One spare copy is on record. The same is given to the counsel for respondent. On the request of counsel for respondent, put up for reply and arguments on the application on 06 10 2015. At this stage, date is changed to 07 10 2015 on the request of counsel for respondent. Copy of reply be supplied to the counsel for petitioner at least one month in advance. DELHI:
Puran Chand Vs. Raja Ram CS no. 04/14 Plaintiff in person with Sh. Nityanand, advocate Defendant in person with Sh. R. P. Sharma, adv. Adjournment sought by the counsel for defendant for filing the documents. Opposed by the counsel for plaintiff. Record reveals that last opportunity for filing the documents was given to the defendant vide order dated 12 11 2014. Even thereafter, the matter has been heard at least four times. In the interest of justice, adjournment is allowed subject, however, to a cost of Rs. 5,000/. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for defendant that he does not want to file any document. Hence, the cost is waived. Arguments heard for framing of issues. Record perused. After hearing both counsels, I am of the prima facie view that the present suit, as framed, is not maintainable as the plaintiff Contd...2
2 has not challenged the allotment of the suit premises in the name of father of the defendant till date. Hence, following preliminary issues is framed: Whether the suit, as framed, is maintainable? OPP Put up for arguments on the preliminary issue on 18 04 2016. DELHI:
Manish Jain Vs. Rajesh Goyal CS no. 636/14 Plaintiff in person with Sh. Sanjay Garg, advocate Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, advocate for defendant Arguments heard on the application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC. Put up for orders on 30 03 2016. DELHI:
Chanchal Sharma Vs. Kusum Sharma CS no. 472/14 None. File taken up today on an order dated 23 02 2016 passed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur, Delhi High Court. The contents of the order have already been noted in the order dated 08 03 2015 passed by me. DELHI:
Ram Kishan Vs. Ram Avtar CS no. 89/15 None. Vide my separate order dictated to the stenographer and announced in the open court today, the application u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff is allowed. Put up for admission/ denial of documents and framing of issues on 05 09 2016. Parties to appear in person. DELHI:
M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sewa Singh Dhiman Sh. Mukesh Singh, AR of the DH in person Sh. Varinder Singh, advocate for JD been settled. It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has On joint request, put up for recording of settlement/ further proceedings on 05 05 2016. At this stage, date is changed to 06 05 2016 on the request of counsel for JD. DELHI:
Tejpal Vs. DDA Appellant in person with Sh. A. P. Singh, advocate Sh. Parduman Rai, advocate for respondent None for others Vakalatnama filed on behalf of appellant. On the request of counsel for appellant that he has been engaged today only, put up for purpose fixed on 30 08 2016. DELHI:
Jagriti Plastic Ltd. Vs. Sudershan Consolidated Ltd. Sh. Vijay Shankar, advocate for plaintiff None for defendant fixed on 03 08 2016. On the request of counsel for plaintiff, put up for purpose DELHI:
Ranvir Singh Vs. MCD Sh. Rahul Singh, son of P 1 in person with Sh. Sandeep Rana, advocate None for others Pass over of the matter is sought by the counsel for plaintiff. Record reveals that counsel for plaintiff was not present even on the last date of hearing. Put up for purpose fixed on 06 10 2016. DELHI:
Manish Garg Vs. Rajan Juneja None. 26 09 2016. Steps not taken. Put up for compliance of previous order by the plaintiff for DELHI:
Manish Garg Vs. Rajan Juneja None. 26 09 2016. Steps not taken. Put up for compliance of previous order by the plaintiff for DELHI:
Devender Vig Vs. Reliance Capital Petitioner in person Ms. Tanvi Talwar, advocate for respondent It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that she has not received copy of application. One spare copy is on record. The same is given to the counsel for respondent. On the request of counsel for respondent, put up for reply and arguments on the application on 06 10 2015. At this stage, date is changed to 07 10 2015 on the request of counsel for respondent. Copy of reply be supplied to the counsel for petitioner at least one month in advance. DELHI:
Devender Vig Vs. Reliance Capital Petitioner in person Ms. Tanvi Talwar, advocate for respondent It is submitted by the counsel for respondent that she has not received copy of application. One spare copy is on record. The same is given to the counsel for respondent. On the request of counsel for respondent, put up for reply and arguments on the application on 06 10 2015. At this stage, date is changed to 07 10 2015 on the request of counsel for respondent. Copy of reply be supplied to the counsel for petitioner at least one month in advance. DELHI:
Puran Chand Vs. Raja Ram CS no. 04/14 Plaintiff in person with Sh. Nityanand, advocate Defendant in person with Sh. R. P. Sharma, adv. Adjournment sought by the counsel for defendant for filing the documents. Opposed by the counsel for plaintiff. Record reveals that last opportunity for filing the documents was given to the defendant vide order dated 12 11 2014. Even thereafter, the matter has been heard at least four times. In the interest of justice, adjournment is allowed subject, however, to a cost of Rs. 5,000/. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for defendant that he does not want to file any document. Hence, the cost is waived. Arguments heard for framing of issues. Record perused. After hearing both counsels, I am of the prima facie view that the present suit, as framed, is not maintainable as the plaintiff Contd...2
2 has not challenged the allotment of the suit premises in the name of father of the defendant till date. Hence, following preliminary issues is framed: Whether the suit, as framed, is maintainable? OPP Put up for arguments on the preliminary issue on 18 04 2016. DELHI:
Manish Jain Vs. Rajesh Goyal CS no. 636/14 Plaintiff in person with Sh. Sanjay Garg, advocate Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, advocate for defendant Arguments heard on the application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC. Put up for orders on 30 03 2016. DELHI:
Chanchal Sharma Vs. Kusum Sharma CS no. 472/14 None. File taken up today on an order dated 23 02 2016 passed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur, Delhi High Court. The contents of the order have already been noted in the order dated 08 03 2015 passed by me. DELHI:
Ram Kishan Vs. Ram Avtar CS no. 89/15 None. Vide my separate order dictated to the stenographer and announced in the open court today, the application u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff is allowed. Put up for admission/ denial of documents and framing of issues on 05 09 2016. Parties to appear in person. DELHI:
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Grasim Electricals & Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Present : Sh. Puneet Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff. None for defendant. One kachhi copy of Order dated 15 2 16 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Valmiki Mehta, Delhi High Court placed on record by the counsel for plaintiff stating that in similar matters, the suits which were transferred to Hon'ble Delhi High Court to District Courts have been re transferred to Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is submitted by him that an appeal against the order is pending before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is fixed for 4 th April, 2016. He prays for a date after 4 th April, 2016. 27 4 16. In the interest of justice, put up for further proceedings on DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
Allport International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaspal Singh & Ors. None. Record perused. Put up for the purpose fixed on 14 9 16. DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
Vijay Kumar Vs. NDPL Present : Sh. Manish Makkar, Advocate for plaintiff. Sh. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for defendant. Time sought by the counsel for plaintiff for filing WS. An application u/s 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff. Copy given. On the request of counsel for defendant, put up for reply and arguments on the application on 21 3 16. At this stage, the date is changed to 22 3 16 on the request of counsel for defendant. DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
Jagdeep Vs. Bimla Present : Plaintiff in person with Sh. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate. Defendant in person with Sh. R.K. Singh, Advocate. Main counsel for defendant has not appeared despite at least two calls till 12.08 pm. Further pass over of the matter is sought by the counsel for defendant. Pass over a matter more than once in favour of the same party is not possible. PW1 Sh. Jagdeep, PW2 Sh. Kuldeep Singh and PW3 Sh. Daya Ram are present. Opportunity to cross examine them is given to Sh. R.K. Singh, Advocate appearing for defendant. PW1 to 3 examined and discharged. No other PW is present nor summoned for today. Time sought by the counsel for defendant to file reply to the application of plaintiff u/s 151 CPC seeking permission to allow handwriting expert to take photographs of the documents on record. It is submitted by the counsel for plaintiff that except the handwriting expert, no other witness is to be examined by the plaintiff. Put up for reply and arguments on the application on 26 th July, 2016. Copy of the reply be supplied to counsel for plaintiff at least one month in advance.
DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
Ramesh Vs. Raj Bala & Ors. Present : Plaintiff in person with Sh. Jitender Kumar, Advocate. Sh. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate for both defendants. Ms. Rashmi Dahiya, Advocate for defendants. Adjournment sought by the counsel for plaintiff on the ground that main counsel is out of station on account of some personal work. Strongly opposed by the counsel for defendants. In the interest of justice, put up for the purpose fixed tomorrow i.e on 16 3 16. At this stage, the date is changed to 21 3 16 on the request of counsel for plaintiff, last opportunity for plaintiff. DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
Neeru Bajaj Vs. Ajay Bajaj & Ors. Present : Sh. Manish Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff. Both defendants in person with Sh. Kapil Kaushik, Advocate. I have found that the proposed amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff on 5 3 15. Arguments heard on the application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. During the arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for plaintiff that paragraph nos. 2 and 3 have been inserted in the proposed amended plaint and there is amendment in the prayer clause also and that the only amendment, the plaintiff is seeking. Put up for Orders on 30 3 16. DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
CS No.155/15 K.M. Poly Yarn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Exciting Fashion & Emb. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Sh. Mukesh Jain, CEO for plaintiff in person. None for defendant. Record perused for disposal of the application u/o 8 Rule 1 read with Sections 148 and 151 CPC filed by the defendants for condonation of delay in filing their written statement. Counsel for the plaintiff opposed the application without filing a reply. I have already heard counsels for the parties on the application. It is the case of the defendants themselves in the application itself that the defendants were served on 14 8 2015. As per Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the defendants were required to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of service. The period expired on 13 9 2015. The written statement has been filed on 17 11 2015. Hence, there is a delay of 64 days (stated in the application as 65 days) in filing the written statement.
It is stated in the application that the summons along with relevant documents were handed over by defendant no.3 to Sh. Anubhav Kohli (one of the employees of defendant no.1) for handing over the same to the panel counsel of defendant no.1 for taking appropriate steps for defending the suit. The said employee told defendant no.3 that he had delivered the said papers to the counsel and that since the counsel was busy in other engagements, he (the counsel) had asked him to contact him one week before the date of hearing. When defendant no.3 contacted the counsel on 7 11 15 after the said employee left defendant no.1, and inquired about the status of the matter, the counsel pleaded his ignorance about the present matter. Only then, defendant no.3 came to know that the papers were not handed over to the counsel by the said employee. Defendant no.3 immediately again sent the papers to the counsel. The written statement was finalized on 10 11 2015. The application is supported by an affidavit of defendant no.3 for himself and as Director of defendant no.1. No document has been placed on record by the defendants to show whether any employee by the name of Sh. Anubhav Kohli ever existed on the payrolls of defendant no.1, much less that he has left defendant no.1. Further, as per the application,
the documents with summons were handed over by defendant no.3 to the said Sh. Anubhav Kohli to be handed over to the panel counsel. Being a panel counsel, the defendants must be in constant touch with the counsel. It is difficult to believe, as also contended by the counsel for plaintiff, that the defendants would not contact their panel counsel for a period of almost two months, particularly keeping in view that everybody these days have mobile phones and there are several other means of communications also. Further, a perusal of the record reveals that the defendants filed the written statement along with the present application. The written statement bears the date of 16 11 2015 and the same is also supported by affidavits which have been attested on 16 11 2015. Hence, the statement of the defendants in the application that the written statement was finalized on 10 11 2015 is false to their knowledge. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the defendants have failed to show any good/sufficient cause for not filing the written statement within 30 days. Hence, no ground for condonation of delay is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/, (which comes to Rs.5,000/ only per defendant).
Put up for payment of costs and plaintiff's evidence on 13 9 2016. Copies of the affidavits of private witnesses be supplied to counsel for defendants at least one month in advance. DELHI:15.03.2016*rk
M/s Millennium Foods Products Vs. M/s Jai Bajrang Trader Plaintiff in person Fresh suit received on assignment. Ld. PO is on half day leave today after lunch. Put up for consideration on 22 03 2016 at 2 pm. (Reader)
Suresh Kumar Pandurang Vs. Mahender Kumar Sh. Sanjar Alam, advocate for plaintiff Fresh suit received on assignment. Ld. PO is on half day leave today after lunch. Put up for consideration on 17 03 2016 at 2 pm. (Reader)