Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Sai Trading Company vs M/S Krbl Limited on 30 October, 2023

Shoban Salim Thakur vs Chaitanya Arora on 15 October, 2025

Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule 126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e., Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:15 ::: 53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of costs must follow.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chaitanya Arora vs Shoban Salim Thakur on 15 October, 2025

Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule 126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e., Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:16 ::: 53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of costs must follow.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shoban Salim Thakur vs Chaitanya Arora on 15 October, 2025

Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule 126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e., Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:08 ::: 53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of costs must follow.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shoban Salim Thakur vs Chaitanya Arora on 15 October, 2025

Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule 126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e., Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:07 ::: 53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of costs must follow.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1