Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 277 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Bharath Skins Corporation vs Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. on 21 December, 2011

Prakash Brothers vs M/S Shree Radhey Krishna Sales Through ... on 28 March, 2025

21. Thus, it can be said that as per Bharath Skins (supra), the cases where the seller sells goods to the buyer and the buyer pays the amount on various occasions, it would be considered as 'non mutual account' as there was only single contractual liability and period of limitation would not be as per Article 1 of the Limitation Act but as per Article 113 of the Act which is a residuary provision.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saraogi Super Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Jata Shankar Prasad on 13 December, 2024

25. Though, ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RFA(OS) 13/2002 titled as Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. and has stated that as the present suit has been instituted on the basis of the mutual account maintained between the parties which is current and open, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. the outstanding / balance amount as the per ledger account should be taken into account for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, however, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. decided on 21st December, 2011 was on the issue of limitation and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms Shallika Fashion Wear P. Ltd vs Aruna Mann on 17 September, 2025

In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 17:03:03 +0530 CS No. 1785/16 M/s Shallika Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Aruna Mann Page No. 14 of 27 Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. (2011 Legal Eagle 1756), which was relied upon by the plaintiff during argument. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aadinath Creation Through Its Deepak ... vs J Orient Apparels Through Its Prop Devi ... on 13 December, 2023

26.Ld. Counsel for plaintiff admits that no such steps were taken by Division Bench. For the foregoing reason, applying the celebrated principles of Interpretation of Law and binding judgments, this Court is bound to follow the dictum laid by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manish Garg Case as the binding law instead of Bharath Skins Case.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narender Khurana vs M/S Rana Polycot Limited on 21 April, 2026

In the absence of any averment in the plaint that there was mutual dealing in the sense that both the parties come under liability under each other. In the present case, the account can be treated to be an open account between the parties on account of transaction mentioned in the plaint and this account can be treated to be running, unsettled or unclosed account but the account in question maintained by Plaintiff cannot be treated to be a mutual account, since neither there are shifting balances nor independent obligations arising because of any other relationship except that of a buyer and a seller. Reliance may be placed in this regard upon the judgment in case titled as Manish Garg Vs. East India Udhog Limited, (2001) Latest Case Law 2022 DEL and in case titled as Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd., 186 (2012) DLT 290 (DB).
Delhi District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Reliance Life Insurance Company ... vs M/S.Hartford Academy Of Insurance And ... on 24 April, 2025

23. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgments in Ranganathan Vs. Saravana Store reported in 2018 (4) CTC 419, (ii) 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 06:22:47 pm ) OSA.No.305 of 2018 Chaitanya Builders and Leasing Private Limited Vs. Rahul Foundations reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 694 (iii) Taneja Silks Company's case [cited supra] and would contend that the right to sue accrues only when there is a denial by the defendant, and that the relevant Article applicable to the present facts of the case is Article 113 of The Limitation Act. For ready reference, Article 113 is extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document

M/S Indiatech (A Partnership Firm) vs . M/S Johnson Engineers Th. Sole ... on 18 May, 2023

Therefore, in the present case limitation period would start running from the date of legal notice when the claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. In the present case, the plaintiff has shown the issuance of legal notice on 03.09.2011. No doubt, the plaintiff issued the legal notice after about one year and 6 months from the last payment received by it from the defendant. However, as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation Vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd.:MANU/DE/7351/2011, the limitation period in the present case has to start from the date of legal notice.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Vinod Madan Through His Legal Heirs vs . Shri Mangal Panday on 22 May, 2023

Therefore, in the present case limitation period would start running from the date of legal notice as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharath Skins Corporation Vs. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd.:MANU/DE/7351/2011. Legal notice in the present case is shown to be issued on 26.02.2015. The present suit is filed on 15.11.2016 i.e. within 3 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The suit is therefore, within limitation. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next