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 2, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

(U/S 151 Cpc) Natasha Kohli vs Mon Mohan Kohli And Ors on 13 February, 2019

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CS(OS) 1321/2006 & & IAs No.19312/2014 (u/O XXXII R-9,11&15
       CPC), 19790/2014 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 12980/2015 (for stay
       of order dated 26 February, 2014), 21637/2015 & 5779/2016 (both of
       D-3 u/S 151 CPC), 12242/2016 (for directions), 11115/2017 (for stay
       of trial before LC), 11116/2017 (for exemption), 12295/2017,
       13868/2018 & 13870/2018 (both of D-1 u/S 151 CPC) & 14000/2018
       (u/S 151 CPC)

       NATASHA KOHLI                                      ..... Plaintiff
                   Through:            Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Ms.
                                       Nandita Rao, Advs.

                                 Versus

     MON MOHAN KOHLI AND ORS                       ..... Defendants
                        Through: Mr. Aditya Madan, Mr. Ankur
                                  Mahindru, Mr. Rohit and Mr. S.
                                  Chaudhary, Advs.
                                  Ms. Chandreyee Maitra, Adv. for
                                  Court Observer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                ORDER

% 13.02.2019 IA No.2190/2019 (of the Court Observer)

1. The Court Observer seeks to move the monies of the defendant No.1 from Standard Chartered Bank to HDFC Bank or IndusInd Bank to reap a better return thereon.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the Standard Chartered Bank has also increased the rate of interest from that being earlier given of 7.40% CS(OS) 1321/2006 Page 1 of 2 per annum to 7.75% per annum and thus the application, citing the rate of interest in another Bank at the rate of 7.80% per annum has become infructuous.

3. The counsel for the defendants also does not desire any such change.

4. The counsel for the applicant/Court Observer has not appeared and has sent Ms. Chandreyee Maitra, Advocate who seeks a passover.

5. However, in view of the aforesaid, no passover is deemed appropriate.

6. The application is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 'bs'..

CS(OS) 1321/2006 Page 2 of 2