Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (1.83 seconds)
Documents citing Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. (Inc.) ... vs Vimla Panna Lal on 14 March, 1986

M/S. Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs M/S. Wockhardt Ltd. on 11 July, 2008

While relying upon Sheila Devi and Ors. case (supra), Commercial Aviation case (supra-6), Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. (supra-13) and other cases as referred to in the judgment, the learned Single Judge of RFA (OS) NO. 85/2007 Page 44 of 67 this Court in a suit for injunction where the valuation for purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 25 lacs, held that no one can be permitted to exercise discretion in such an arbitrary manner which may even be opposed to the public policy. It was further observed that in normal course, the plaintiff would be required to institute the suit in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it in terms of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the exceptions to such rule are founded on the plaintiff‟s intention to value the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction at a higher amount. But for the averment in the plaint the plaintiff would not have been able to institute the case in this Court. The Court directed the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court fee on valuation fixed for jurisdictional purposes at Rs. 25 lacs.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - A Suresh - Full Document

R.S. Malik vs Sh. Krishan Mohan on 7 September, 2009

On consideration of the matter, I find no force in this revision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and others Vs. Mrs. Vimla Panna Lal (supra) while dealing with a suit for rendition of account, formed a view that the valuation by the plaintiff could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, as specific amount to which the plaintiff would be entitled to could not be determined at the time of filing of the suit. In the case in hand, the plaintiff / petitioner claimed specific amount, therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not apply to the facts of the case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kuldip Thapar vs Babita Nayar And Ors. on 1 March, 2004

In view of these averments law cited by learned counsel for plaintiff in (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 288, Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. v. Vimla Panna Lal, is fully applicable to the averments alleged in the Plaint, whereas law cited by learned counsel for Respondent in 1993 I.S.J. 437, Smt. Bachni Devi v. Tej Ram and Ors., is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Moreover, Respondent have also taken these objections in the written statement and as such plaintiff/shall be liable to pay court be before of that decree, if any account which was found due after determination to final decision by the Court. Accordingly application moved by Defendant/ Applicant shall stands dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits on the main case."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Frank Educational Aids Pvt. Ltd. vs Fair Deal Marketing on 20 June, 1997

(16) In M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Company & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Vimla Pannala (supra), the Supreme Court again observed as under: @SUBPARA = Ordinarily, it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a suit for accounts simpliciter. If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. Indeed, in a suit for accounts it is also difficult for the court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief. In such a case, the court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff's valuation, tentatively. Of course, when there is an objective standard of valuation, to put valuation on the relief ignoring such objective standard, might be a demonstratively arbitrary and unreasonable valuation and the court would be entitled to interfere in the matter".
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. vs M/S. Raj Medicos & Anr. on 20 April, 1998

Mr. Sahni has contended that if the Court ultimately comes to an opinion from the material on record or evidence adduced that the suit is under- valued or over-valued, the Court can pass appropriate order. But at the time of institution of the suit, law enjoins plaintiff the right to fix its own valuation for the relief of rendition of account and for valuation purposes of jurisdiction. In case of former, the suit has been valued at Rs.200/- and the later at Rs.5,50,000/-. He has cited the whole catena of cases i.e. M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Company and Ors. Vs. Vimal Pannalal; , Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd.; 1993 PTC 40, M/s Commercial Aviation & Travel Co. & others Vs. Vimla Panna Lal; , M/s Eastman Kodak Company Vs. M/s M.R. Electronics & Others; 1995 PTC 146 and Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. R.K. Dhawan & Anr.; as well as M/s P.M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. M/s Patel Field Marshal Industries & Anr.; FAO(OS) 270/95 decided on 13.3.1998.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Maharaja Kumar Kharagh Singh Of Nabha ... vs His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Of ... on 16 January, 2014

(b) relying on Prakash Wati Vs. Dayawanti AIR 1991 Delhi 48, Rani Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Nagi AIR 1999 Delhi 109, Abdul Hamid Shamai Vs. Abdul Majid AIR 1988 SC 1150 and Commercial Aviation & Travel Company Vs. Vimla Panna Lal AIR 1988 SC 1636 it was held that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction;
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next