Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Haryana vs Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. on 15 September, 1995

Star Paper Mills Ltd. vs Behari Lal Madan Lal Jaipuria And Ors. on 20 March, 2007

15. Learned Counsel for the defendants referred to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Nibro Ltd v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and State of Haryana v. Bharat Stell Tubes Ltd. AIR 1996 Delhi 198. These two judgments only emphasize that plaintiff cannot succeed in a suit unless an authorization in favor of the person instituting the suit is proved. Since the same is proved, these judgments do not come in the way of the plaintiff. The issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Tinna Overseas Limited vs Krm International Ltd. & Another on 28 May, 2010

(ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Limited, AIR 1996 Delhi 198 In this case the Delhi High Court ruled that in a suit for recovery of money, in which the plaintiff was demanding RFA No.365/2007 Page 8 of 18 the refund of money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, the time will run from the date the defendant‟s refusal to pay the amount came to the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria vs Star Papers Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 28 May, 2012

In this behalf the appellant referred to the following judgments: Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Delhi 25 and State of Haryana v. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd., AIR 1996 Delhi 198. According to the appellant these judgments emphasize that the respondent No.1 could not succeed in the suit unless authorization in favour of RFA (OS) 26/2008 Page 8 of 17 person instituting the suit is proved. It was thus urged on behalf of the appellant that PW-1 had been unable to prove that any resolution or authority in accordance with law was accepted by the respondent No.1 Company in favour of Shri L.K.Poddar who had allegedly signed and verified the plaint and instituted the suit since PW-1 had in his cross-examination stated that to his knowledge the respondent No.1 Company did not pass any resolution. However, it is seen that the PW-1 actually proved the said resolution and being familiar with the signature of Shri L.K.Poddar were able to identify the same. This said question is thus decided against the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Mridul - Full Document

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha vs Sony Trade Links (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 14 January, 2015

In Bharat Steel Tubes Limited (supra) the Delhi High Court came to the finding on facts that the suit was not properly verified on behalf of the state. In the instant case, I have already held that, the source of power of the person verifying the plaint being the power of attorney which is Exhibit 'B' in the suit cannot be looked into. Therefore, without such power to verify being available, the suit filed by the plaintiff has not been properly instituted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

M/S. Mithas Exclusive Catering ... vs . M/S Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 28 September, 2022

19. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that it was mentioned in the statement of account filed by the plaintiff that the cheque was presented twice and therefore, there was no concealment of the fact by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled State of Haryana Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. AIR 1996 Delhi 198.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.(Ms.) V.L.Bhargava And Anr. vs Shri Balwant Singh And Anr. on 11 July, 2012

34. Relying on AIR 1996 Delhi 198 titled as „State of Haryana v. Bharat Steel Tube Ltd.‟, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the time for suit will begin to run from when the opposite party refused to pay the claim. In this case, since the claim was declined by the builder/contractor by their lawyer‟s reply dated 10th December, 2002, therefore, the time will start from that point and as the suit was filed in July, 2003, and the limitation started running from 10th December, 2002, therefore, the suit is well within the time. The issue No.1 is, therefore, decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It is held that the suit is within time.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Shri Balwant Singh vs Dr.(Ms.) V.L.Bhargava And Anr. on 11 July, 2012

34. Relying on AIR 1996 Delhi 198 titled as „State of Haryana v. Bharat Steel Tube Ltd.‟, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the time for suit will begin to run from when the opposite party refused to pay the claim. In this case, since the claim was declined by the builder/contractor by their lawyer‟s reply dated 10th December, 2002, therefore, the time will start from that point and as the suit was filed in July, 2003, and the limitation started running from 10th December, 2002, therefore, the suit is well within the time. The issue No.1 is, therefore, decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It is held that the suit is within time.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document
1