Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd vs Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 7 April, 2021

Deepak Raheja vs Ganga Taro Vazirani on 1 October, 2021

33. The learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Laxmi Polyfab v. Eden Realty21 and Dredging and Desiltation Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Mackintosh Burn and Northern Consortium and Ors.22 has referred to the object of Section 12A and has held it to be mandatory and the object being to have expedited disposal of the suit. We agree with this conclusion of the learned single Judge in Laxmi Polyfab and in Dredging and Desiltation Company.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 27 - N M Jamdar - Full Document

Ramesh Co vs Imperial Tubes Private Limited on 7 April, 2022

16. Even if it is presumed that the Master did not have the power to grant leave, the absence of power is at the highest, an irregularity, which has subsequently been cured by the decree dated 16th January, 2020 and the affirmation of the decree in review on 11th February, 2021. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the grant of leave by the Master would nullify all further proceedings and orders thereafter or would amount to an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Court in receiving the suit. The registered office of the defendant/judgment-debtor is within the jurisdiction of this Court and the claim of the plaintiff is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is also not the case of the defendant/judgment-debtor that the subject matter of this suit cannot 14 be received, tried or determined by this Court. The exercise of jurisdiction, even if irregular, cannot set the decree at naught when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, section 12-A of the 2015 Act cannot non-suit a plaintiff who otherwise has a legal and valid claim. As held in Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. vs Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd.; AIR 2021 Cal 190, a plaintiff cannot be non-suited for non compliance in respect of suits filed up to 11th December, 2020 since the requisite infrastructure under section 12-A was not notified.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

Vijay Mahajan vs Parvesh Kumar Gupta on 12 October, 2022

12. Additionally, to emphasize the mandatory nature of Section 12- A of the Commercial Courts Act, and the requirement of urgent interim relief has been sought as the indispensable sine qua non for seeking exemption from the applicability thereof, Mr. Bhargava has cited a judgment of a coordinate Single Bench of this Court in Gurjinder Singh v. S. Gurbir Singh4 and of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in Laxmi Polyfab Pvt Ltd v. Eden Realty 2 174 (2010) DLT 439 3 AIR 2006 J&K 91 4 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4864 Signature Not Verified CM(M) 1069/2022 Page 6 of 18 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:14.10.2022 16:09:34 Ventures Pvt Ltd5.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

M/S. Odisha Slurry Pipeline ... vs Idbi Bank Ltd. & Ors on 9 December, 2022

It takes us to a Single Bench decision rendered in case of Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 2021 CAL 190. The said case relates to the suits pending before the Commercial Division and the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court and the proceedings under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the aforesaid jurisdiction in relation to the provision contained under Section 12A and Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The first issue framed in the said judgement as evident therefrom, relates to whether Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory or directory. The said judgment was decided on April 7, 2021 and it was held that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory as it achieved the twin object of expeditious disposal and avoidance of a docket explosive. It was further held that the failure of the 12 plaintiff to exhaust the remedy under Section 12A of the Act may result in dismissal of the suit provided the plaintiff does not seek an urgent interim relief in the following:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - H Tandon - Full Document

Namita Gupta vs Suraj Holdings Limited on 9 January, 2024

In ANE Industries Private Limited (supra), the Calcutta High Court, relying upon its earlier judgment in Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and having held that Section 15 of the Act would not apply to Suits filed after the establishment of the Commercial Division in the said High Court, directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff therein to be presented before the appropriate Court in accordance with the law.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

M/S. Siemens Healthcare Private ... vs Sun Hospital And Ors on 20 August, 2024

In Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd (supra), the learned Single Judge was dealing with a regular commercial civil suit and not a 8 proceeding under the 1996 Act. The learned Single Judge took into consideration Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 15 of the 2015 Act, all of which provisions deal with commercial suits and connected applications, as opposed to Section 10 of the 2015 Act, which specifically refers to applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the 1996 Act. Hence, the said decision cannot be said to be a binding precedent with regard to an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Siddhartha Insurance Limited vs The Owners And Parties on 5 September, 2024

9. Section 15 of the CC Act which provides for transfer of proceedings only enables transfer of suits which were pending before the introduction and commencement of the Act. As stated hereinabove, admittedly all these suits have been filed post introduction of the CC Act. Accordingly, there is no question of transferring any of the suits to the Commercial Division 11 of this Court since each of the above suits has been improperly instituted post commencement of the CC Act. In such circumstances, there is a defect in the filing of these suits before any Division other than the Commercial Division of this Court. If a suit has been instituted before an incorrect Division after the introduction of the CC Act, Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandates that the Court has no option but to return the plaint filed in such a suit and present the same before the Appropriate Division. (Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2021 Cal 190). A strict construction of the provisions of the CC Act is imperative in order to achieve the object and purpose of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next