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 and framing of issues on 21-01-2016.
Suit No. : 332/12 Counsel for the plaintiff. None for the defendant. Arguments heard. Now put up for orders on 23-01-2016.
Ex. No. : 96/10 Counsel for the DH. After some arguments, the counsel for the DH states that she be given some time to move a proper application for condonation of delay. Heard. Allowed. Now put up for further proceedings on 6-2-2016.
RCA No. : 57/13 Counsel for the appellant. Counsel for LR of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person. The counsel for the appellant has moved an application U/s 151 CPC for waving of cost imposed on 5-2-15, 18-3-2015 and 28-5-2015 which was imposed because the appellant had not taken steps for the service of respondent No. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the respondent No. 2 was served on 22-07-2014 and the receipt is already filed on record by him on 16-4-2015 in the Court. It is submitted by him that since the counsel for the respondent No. 2 was served so he has not taken steps for the service of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted by him that this fact could not be informed either to the Ld predecessor of this court or to this Court due to inadvertence. He seeks the waiver of the 3 costs imposed on these dates. Heard. Perused the records. The record shows that Counsel Sh. BB Sharma was served with the notice of the appeal on 22-07-2014 and this fact also not denied by the respondent No. 2 that Sh. B.B. Sharma was not his counsel. In view of this the above mentioned 3 costs imposed on the appellant are waived. Further cost of Rs. 6500/- paid. The appellant has also moved an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 2 days in filing the application U/o Contd...
--2-- XXII Rule 3 CPC. Copy given. Respondent No. 2 submits that he has no objection if the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act and application U/o 22 Rule 3 CPC are allowed. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that no document has been placed on record in regard to the death of the deceased appellant, however, he has no objection if the applications U/s 5 of the Limitation Act and application U/o 22 Rule 3 CPC are allowed. In view of this, the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay is condoned and application U/o XXII Rule 3 CPC is also allowed. The LRs of deceased appellant are taken on record. Now put up for filing of amended memo of parties on the next date of hearing and also for disposal of the appeal on 8-3-2016.
Suit No. : 48A/2014 Counsel for the parties. PW 2 Sunil Kumar Arora cross examined and discharged. Now put up for remaining PE on 21-01-2016.
Suit No. : 378/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant Raj Pal in person. Reply to the application U/s 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff not filed. It is submitted by defendant Raj Pal that he has not received the copy of the application U/s 151 CPC but this averment of his is not believable looking into the previous order sheet. However, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is granted to file the reply to the application U/s 151 CPC subject to cost of Rs. 2500/-. Now put up for filing of reply to the application U/s 151 CPC by the defendant on 29-2-2016.
Suit No. : 379/15 Plaintiff in person. Counsel for the defendant. Put up with the connected case on 29-02-2016.
Ex. No. : 216/10 Ashok Arora Vs. Naresh Kumar DH in person. File taken up today on an application U/s 151 CPC for ratification of order for the publication of proclamation of the sale in the Statesman instead of the New paper The Hindustan Times moved by the defendant. Heard. Perused the application. In the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and the DH is directed to get the publication of proclamation of the sale published in the news paper Statesman instead of Hindustan Times. The application is disposed off accordingly. Put up on the date already fixed i.e 18-04-2016. Copy of order be given dasti as prayed.
CS No. 378/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant not served. Be served again on filing of PF and RC as also through affixation for 25.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Put up for service of defendant on 25.02.2016.
CS No. 417/15 Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff. Memo of Appearance filed on behalf of the defendants. Put up for Vakalatnama and for filing of WS on 27.01.2016.
CS No. 621/15 Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant not served. Be served again on filing of PF and RC for 06.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Put up for service of defendant on 06.02.2016.
Suit No. 620/15 Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant not served. Be served again on filing of PF and RC for 06.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Put up for service of defendant on 06.02.2016.
CS No. 394/15 Proxy Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant not served. Be served again on filing of PF and RC for 06.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Put up for service of defendant on 06.02.2016.
CS No. 376/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. As per the report, defendant Amar Pal has expired. Counsel seeks time to file an application for substitution of his LRs. Put up for further proceedings on 09.02.2016.
RCA No. 18/15 Proxy Counsel for the appellant. Proxy Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Steps for service of defendant no. 3 not taken. Respondent no. 3 be served again on filing of PF and RC for 04.03.2016. Steps to be taken within three days.
Suit No. 156/13 Plaintiff in person alongwith Sh. Chittranjan, Adv. Sh. R.S. Gautam, proxy counsel for the defendant. He seeks time for filing the Vakalatnama and a seeks adjournment. In my opinion this is no ground for adjournment. On the last date of hearing, fresh Vakalatnama was filed and the counsel who had filed the Vakalatnama, took time to crossexamine the witness, and the matter was adjourned, subject to costs of Rs. 15,000/-, which is also not paid. And, today also a new counsel has come, who is even seeking time for filing the WS, which shows the casual manner, in which the defendant is taking the court proceedings. In view of the same, right to further cross-examination of PW-1 is closed. Vide separate statement of the plaintiff, PE closed. Put up for DE on 17.02.2016. List of witnesses to be filed within ten days. Defendant is directed to supply the advance copy of evidence by way of affidavit to the counsel for the plaintiff, seven days prior to the date of hearing.
CS No. 126/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Proxy Counsel Sh. Falit Kaushik, for the defendant. He has placed on record the medical certificate of witness Dr. Sudhir C. Joseph. Perused the medical certificate. Witness is exempted from appearance for today only. Affidavit of this witness has already been supplied to the counsel for the plaintiff. Put up for DE on 18.02.2016.
Suit No. 163/15 Counsels for the parties. heard. Arguments on the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Put up for Orders on 04.02.2016.
Suit No. 482/15 Plaintiff in person alongwith proxy counsel Sh. Nishant Bhadoriya, Adv. Counsel for the defendant nos. 1 to 3. Counsel for the defendant nos. 9 to 14. Counsel for the defendant no. 15. Ahlamad has produced a parcha yadasht, as file is not traceable. It is submitted by the counsel for he defendant no. 15 that plaintiff was supposed to supply the plaint and other documents, which has not been done by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to supply the same, within three days. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 has filed their original documents alongwith list. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 also filed an application under Section 151 CPC. Copy given. WS filed on behalf of defendant nos. 9 to 14. Copy given. Put up for filing of WS on behalf of defendant no. 15, and reply to the WS of defendant nos. 9 to 14, and reply to the application under Section 151 CPC, for 10.02.2016.
CS No. 181/14 Counsels for the parties. Cost of Rs.20,000/- paid. Defendant has moved an application under Section 151 CPC, for recalling of order dated 03.12.2015, by virtue of which the DE was closed. The application is accompanied by the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, which shows the presence of the Counsel in court no. 10. Application is also accompanied by the text of the conversation, done on SMS, between main counsel and the proxy counsel. Copy given. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he does not want to file any reply, and has no objection, if the application is allowed, and only one opportunity is granted to the defendant, to lead entire DE. In view of the no objection accorded by the counsel for the plaintiff, the application under Section 151 CPC is allowed. Defendant is granted one opportunity to lead entire DE. Put up for DE on 25.02.2016. List of witnesses to be filed within ten days. Defendant is directed to supply the advance copy of evidence by way of affidavit to the counsel for the plaintiff, seven days prior to the date of hearing.
Suit No. 241/13 Counsels for the parties. No PW is present. Counsel for the plaintiff has moved an application under order 7 Rule 14(3) alongwith certain documents. Copy given. Put up for reply and arguments on the above said application on 20.02.2016. Cost be also paid on the next date of hearing.
CS No. 352/15 Counsels for the parties. Counsel for the defendant has moved an application under Section 151 CPC. Copy given. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to file the reply. Put up for disposal of the above said application on 09.02.2016.
CS No. 250/09 Parties in person. Counsel for the defendant. LC Sh. Sartaj Ali, Advocate is present. He has made the clarifications. Parties seek some more time to work out the modalities. In view of this, put up for further proceedings on 02.02.2016.
CS No. 219/15 Proxy Counsel Sh. G.P. Pant for Sh. Rohit Kumar, Adv, for the plaintiff. Proxy counsel for the defendant. It is submitted by the proxy counsel for the plaintiff that the main counsel is suffering from joint pain in his knees, so, he is unable to come to the court today. He seeks adjournment. In the interests of justice, granted. Put up for final arguments on 16.02.2016.
Suit No. 222/15 Proxy Counsel Sh. G.P. Pant for Sh. Rohit Kumar, Adv, for the plaintiff. Proxy counsel for the defendant. Put up with the connected case on 16.02.2016.
Suit No. 164/14 Counsels for the parties. Plaintiff no. 2 in person. Defendant no. 2 in person. An application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 16.05.2015, moved on behalf of the defendant no. 1. It is urged by the counsel for the defendant no. 1 that the defendant no. 1 has not been keeping well, and he has placed on record his medical certificate alongwith the application. It is further submitted by him that the defendant no. 1 is still getting treatment in Sucheta Kriplani Hospital,as he is paralytic. But, no document with regard to his paralysis, has been filed on record. On the other hand, it is urged by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has been appearing in the court alongwith counsel. It is further urged by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 26.05.2015, and thereafter he appeared in the court on 16.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 alongwith proxy counsel and then again on 15.09.2015, when the ex-parte evidence was led. It was only on 12.10.2015, that the present application under disposal has been moved. It is nothing but just a delay tactics. It is further submitted by him that he has no objection if the application is allowed, but subject to cost. Heard. Perused the application. In view of the no objection accorded by the counsel for the plaintiff, the application is allowed, the exparte order dated 26.05.2015 is set aside, subject to cost of Rs.4,000/-. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has also moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 30.07.2015. It is urged by the counsel for the plaintiff that he has no objection if the application is allowed, but subject to heavy cost. Heard. Perused the application. In view of the no objection
accorded by the counsel for the plaintiff, the application is allowed, the exparte order dated 30.07.2015 is set aside, subject to cost of Rs.4,000/-. WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 1. Copy given. Put up for replication, documents, admission denial and framing of issues on 01.02.2016.
RCA No. 11/14 Parties in person alongwith Counsel. Counsels for the parties submits that there are chances of settlement, as parties are ready to settle the matter. In view of this, put up for further proceedings on 02.02.2016.
Suit No. 124/13 Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to file fresh application for restoration of the suit. Heard. Allowed. Put up for further proceedings on 01.02.2016.
Suit No. 396/15 Plaintiff in person alongwith counsel. Counsel for the defendant. It is pointed out by the counsels that on 07.12.2015, it has been mentioned in the order that it was submitted by the counsel for the defendant that as per the report of the SDM, the old record has been weeded out, rather it was submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff, and not for the defendant. So, this correction is accordingly made in the last order, and the 'counsel for the defendant' be read as 'counsel for the plaintiff'. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to file the secondary evidence in respect of the GPA. Put up for PE on 22.02.2016.
Suit No. 160/15 Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant. Cross-examination of PW-1 recorded partly. Further crossexamination is deferred at the request of the counsel for the defendant. Put up for RPE on 16.03.2016. The date is given at the request of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 267A/15 Son of the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant Vinod Kumar in person. An application under Order 18 rule 2 and 17 r/w Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of the defendant no. 7. Copy given. Put up for reply and arguments on 26.02.2016.
Suit No. 565/15 Counsel for the petitioner. Sh. Mudit Rastogi, AR of the defendant. Copy given. Reply to the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act filed. Put up for arguments on 02.02.2016.
Suit No. 566/15 Counsel for the petitioner. Sh. Mudit Rastogi, AR of the defendant. Copy given. Reply to the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act filed. Put up for arguments on 02.02.2016.
CS No. 203/15 HDFC BANK VS. RAHUL KUMAR File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Issue notice of the petition to the respondent on filing of PF and RC for 12.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days.
Suit No. HDFC BANK LTD VS. CHAMAN BANSAL File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Issue notice of the petition to the respondent on filing of PF and RC for 12.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days.
CS No. HDFC BANK LTD. VS. KAMAL SHARMA File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Issue notice of the petition to the respondent on filing of PF and RC for 12.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days.
Suit No. HDFC BANK LTD VS. NITIN SHARMA File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Issue notice of the petition to the respondent on filing of PF and RC for 12.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days.
Suit No. TEXMACO INFRASTRUCTURE VS. VINEET BHALLA File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person alongwith counsel. 09.02.2016. Put up for admission denial, documents and framing of issues on
Suit No. TEXMACO INFRASTRUCTURE VS. ANKIT SHARMA File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person alongwith counsel. 09.02.2016. Put up for admission denial, documents and framing of issues on
Suit No. TEXMACO INFRASTRUCTURE VS. JAI KISHORE File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person alongwith counsel. 09.02.2016. Put up for admission denial, documents and framing of issues on
Suit No. TEXMACO INFRASTRUCTURE VS. NITIN KUMAR File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant in person alongwith counsel. 09.02.2016. Put up for admission denial, documents and framing of issues on
Suit No. 206/15 HDFC BANK VS. PINKY SINGH File received by way of transfer from the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, ADJ-13 (Central), THC, Delhi vide order No. 1948/44074-106/F.3. (4)/adj/gaz/15 Dated 17 Oct. 2015 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, (HQ), Delhi. It be checked and registered. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant/petitioner that he wants to withdraw the present petition. His statement to this effect recorded on a separate sheet. In view of the statement of the counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the petition under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room.
Suit No. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mahabir Prasad Dubey 13.01.2016. registered. Fresh case received on assignment. It be checked and Present: Sh. N. Balaraman, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC for seeking appointment of Ex-parte receiver. It is averred in the application that the plaintiff bank advanced a loan of Rs. 11,42,606/- to the defendant for purchasing a vehicle make EICHER 11.10 bearing registration no. DL1GC1260. The said loan was to be repaid in 35 equated monthly installments of Rs.39,262/-, out of which respondent has paid 25 installments and has committed default of 4 installments. In these circumstances, he prays for the appointment of Ex-parte Receiver. The notice of this petition has been served through RC for 19.09.2015, but despite notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the termination amount, as demanded by the plaintiff bank in notice. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the application as well as document placed on record. Perusal of the above shows that plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.11,42,606/-, to the defendant for purchasing a vehicle bearing registration no. DL1GC1260. The said loan was to be repaid by the defendant in 35 equated monthly installments. However, defendant has paid 25 installments out of 35 installments and has committed default of 4 installments, till filing of the suit. The vehicle in question was hypothecated by the defendant and is the only security for repayment of loan. If the defendant succeeds in creating third party interest in respect to the vehicle in question, which is hypothecated by him, then the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, moreover, he has failed to adhere the financial discipline of repayment of loan.
The above facts thus clearly shows that plaintiff has a primafacie case for seeking appointment of an Ex-parte receiver to repossess the vehicle in question from the defendant. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, request made by the plaintiff for appointment of Ex-parte Receiver is accepted. Mr. Akshat Saxena/Rajesh Singh, Representative of the plaintiff bank, is hereby appointed as receiver with the direction to repossess the vehicle make EICHER 11.10 bearing registration no. DL1GC1260. After repossessing the vehicle from defendant, receiver shall prepare the inventories of the vehicle in question and shall keep the said vehicle in his safe custody till further order. The receiver is also directed to file the status report before the next date. Put up for service of defendant on filing of PF and RC for 10.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Order be given dasti, as prayed. ADJ;DELHI 13.01.2016.
Suit No. ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Rakesh Kumar 13.01.2016. registered. Fresh case received on assignment. It be checked and Present: Sh. N. Balaraman, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC for seeking appointment of Ex-parte receiver. It is averred in the application that the plaintiff bank advanced a loan of Rs. 3,95,920/- to the defendant for purchasing a vehicle make TATA ACE bearing registration no. DL1LT3788. The said loan was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.11224/-, out of which respondent has paid 19 installments and has committed default of 3 installments. In these circumstances, he prays for the appointment of Ex-parte Receiver. The notice of this petition has been served through RC for 25.08.2015, but despite notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the termination amount, as demanded by the plaintiff bank in notice. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the application as well as document placed on record. Perusal of the above shows that plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.11,42,606/-, to the defendant for purchasing a vehicle bearing registration no. DL1GC1260. The said loan was to be repaid by the defendant in 35 equated monthly installments. However, defendant has paid 25 installments out of 35 installments and has committed default of 4 installments, till filing of the suit. The vehicle in question was hypothecated by the defendant and is the only security for repayment of loan. If the defendant succeeds in creating third party interest in respect to the vehicle in question, which is hypothecated by him, then the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, moreover, he has failed to adhere the financial discipline of repayment of loan.
The above facts thus clearly shows that plaintiff has a primafacie case for seeking appointment of an Ex-parte receiver to repossess the vehicle in question from the defendant. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, request made by the plaintiff for appointment of Ex-parte Receiver is accepted. Mr. Akshat Saxena/Rajesh Singh, Representative of the plaintiff bank, is hereby appointed as receiver with the direction to repossess the vehicle make EICHER 11.10 bearing registration no. DL1GC1260. After repossessing the vehicle from defendant, receiver shall prepare the inventories of the vehicle in question and shall keep the said vehicle in his safe custody till further order. The receiver is also directed to file the status report before the next date. Put up for service of defendant on filing of PF and RC for 10.02.2016. Steps to be taken within three days. Order be given dasti, as prayed. ADJ;DELHI 13.01.2016.
Suit No. Brij Mohan Gote Wala & Anr. Vs. Sh.Padam Chand Vaish & Anr. Counsels for the parties. Part arguments heard. Put up for further arguments on 15.01.2016. Interim order to be continued. Copy of the order be given dasti.
CS No. 396/15 M/s Alankit Assignments Ltd. Vs. Ms. Shubhita Aggarwal & Anr. Counsel for the petitioner. He has moved an application under Section 151 CPC alongwith certain documents. Issue notice of this application to the respondents on filing of PF for the date fixed, i.e. 19.02.2015. Till then, operation of the impugned award dated 20.08.2015 be stayed. Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.
Ex. No. 66/12 None. No time left for orders as arguments were heard in a case titled as Brij Mohan Gote Wala & Anr. Vs. Sh.Padam Chand Vaish & Anr, till 4.00 P.M. Put up for Orders on 03.02.2016.
Suit No. 158/15 Ms. Promila & Anr. Vs. Smt. Lal Kumari Devi & Anr. None. Vide separate Judgment dictated and announced in the open court today, the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, is decreed with cost. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.