Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.67 seconds)

Dugar Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Roots Cooling System on 23 August, 2024

39. Learned counsel for the defendants upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P D Verma and Co. Vs. Laxmi Builders [2014 SCC OnLine Del 2160] while contending that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove its case. However, considering the totality of the evidence on record, defendants cannot derive any benefit from the said judgment inasmuch as the plaintiff has placed on record its best possible evidence and has discharged the initial burden.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bipin Kumar Gupta vs Roots Cooling Systems Private Limited on 16 May, 2024

26. Ld. counsel for the defendant submitted that the the proof of pre- ponderence of probability is not met by the plaintiff in the present case. The plaintiff has to stand its own leg to prove the case, hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed. (relied upon 'Anand Swarup Data Vs. PNB, 1996 SCC OnLine P & H 655', 'P D Verma and Co. Vs. Laxmi Builders, 2014 SCC Online Del 2160' and 'M/s Gauhati Roller Flour Mills Vs. Smti. Premoda Medhi and Ors').
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Garg vs Manoj Jain on 30 September, 2024

Though ideally the plaintiff ought to have proved the letter of HDFC Bank filed during the course of arguments by leading evidence, however, keeping in view that the objection is more of a hyper technical nature and the plaintiff has repeatedly described himself and signed as proprietor of Commercial House with its stamp, the same can be taken in the light of fact that hyper technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the purpose of justice, more so, when the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in P.D. Verma (supra) has already held that the sole proprietorship firm and the name of sole proprietor can be used interchangeably.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balcorp Limited vs M/S Ganga Ram Brij Mohan on 14 November, 2024

In support of his submission, he places reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadesh Kumar & Anr, (1998) 5 SCC 567; Rasikalal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196, and of this Court in P.D. Verma and Co v. Laxmi Builders, (2014) SCC OnLine Del 2160; Sushila v. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine Del 3188 and, K.S. Exports v. Ethopian Airlines, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4978, and of High Court of Bombay in Satsahib Cotton Pressing Factory v C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7783, and of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ushadevi W/O Late Radheshyam Agarwal & Anr. v. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6113.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Shree Baba Somnath Logistics vs Roots Cooling Systems Pvt Ltd on 23 November, 2024

Reliance is then placed on Section 101 and law laid in P.D. Verma and Co Vs. Laxmi Builders 2014 SCC Online Del 2160. (38) Defendant asserted that present case presents sufficient grounds for the application of Section of 106 and 114 G of Indian Evidence Act. It is asked that adverse inference be raised as plaintiff withheld crucial evidence by not examining the proprietor Ms. Pooja Sharma, the CA, Drivers or the receptionist.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Roots Cooling System Pvt Ltd vs M/S Shree Baba Somnath Logistics on 23 November, 2024

Reliance is then placed on Section 101 and law laid in P.D. Verma and Co Vs. Laxmi Builders 2014 SCC Online Del 2160. (38) Defendant asserted that present case presents sufficient grounds for the application of Section of 106 and 114 G of Indian Evidence Act. It is asked that adverse inference be raised as plaintiff withheld crucial evidence by not examining the proprietor Ms. Pooja Sharma, the CA, Drivers or the receptionist.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next