Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mrs. Rajeshwari vs M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd on 7 January, 2019

Author: Jayant Nath

Bench: Jayant Nath

$~CP-1 to 5
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CO.PET. 403/2015
     MRS. RAJESHWARI                              ..... Petitioner
                  versus
     M TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.                  ..... Respondent

+    CO.PET. 860/2015
     SMT. RAJ KUMARI                     ..... Petitioner
                  versus
     M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

+    CO.PET. 882/2015
     SANJAY VASHIST                               ..... Petitioner
                  versus
     M-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED,                   ..... Respondent

+    CO.PET. 971/2015
     SH. NIMIT BHARDWAJ                                  ..... Petitioner
                   versus
     M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.                              ..... Respondent

+    CO.PET. 42/2016
     DALEL SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                  versus
     M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS.                    ..... Respondent

     Present:      Ms.Puja Agarwal, Adv. for the petitioner in item No.1.
     Mr.Manish Vats and Mr.Gopal Singh, Advs. for petitioners in item
     No.3 and 4.
     Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon and Ms.Mamta Tandon, Advs. for the
     petitioner in item No.5.
     Mr.Sushil Aggarwal and Mr.R.K.Tripathi, Advs. for respondents.
       CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

                       ORDER

% 07.01.2019 Pursuant to the last order dated 4.9.2018 Mr.Amit Kumar Jha, Director of the respondent company is not present in court. An affidavit has been filed as per the last order whereby it has been stated that the dues of the petitioner would be paid in instalment of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that this offer is not acceptable as the refund of their dues would take a long time.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks an adjournment to suggest a better offer.

At request, adjourned to 4.2.2019.

JAYANT NATH, J JANUARY 07, 2019 n