Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Hawkins Cookers Limited vs Citizen Metal Industries (India) on 11 August, 2006

Union Of India vs M/S Jcb India Ltd on 27 September, 2019

In Hawkins Cookers (supra), there was a plaint existing before the lower court, as was also the case in Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., 127 (2006) DLT 300, where the Court noted that Section 24 FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 44/2019 Page 7 of 23 could not be used when "the proceedings in the suit have fully and finally terminated and the Court below has become functus officio" (paragraph 10). Nevertheless, the Court noted that in cases such as the present one, where the provisions of Section 24 do not seem to apply, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 are apposite as "[i]t will be a travesty of justice if the proceedings have to commence de novo" (paragraph 16-
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

M/S.Gursharan Singh vs M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd & Ors. on 23 December, 2011

In Hawkins Cookers Ltd (Supra) the suit was instituted in the High Court and after several proceedings, on account of increase in pecuniary jurisdiction the case was transferred from the High Court to the District Civil Court. Pursuant to an application for amendment, the value of the suit was enhanced for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction to Rs.21 lakhs and the file was sent by the District Judge to the High Court. After the suit was sent on account of increase of jurisdictional value of the suit by District Judge to the High Court, the plea was taken that it amounted to return of the plaint. This Court, however, had held that return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction whether pecuniary or territorial cannot be equated to the transfer of the suit or proceedings either by virtue of Section 24 of CPC or owing to any other statutory change. The Court had also observed that in civil cases where suits had been transferred from the High Curt to the District Court and the valuation of the suit was revised and the plaintiff approached the Court under Section 24 of the CPC and the order of the District Judge to send the file or transmit to the High Court, was CS(OS) 3768 A of 1991 Page 17 of 21 assumption and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of CPC of the High Court to transfer the suit to itself. Therefore, the plea that this tantamount to return of the plaint was repelled and the suit was restored to the original number.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Narendar Singh And Ors. vs The Indian Institute Of Architects on 28 November, 2013

In Hawkins Cookers (supra), there was a plaint existing before the lower court, as was also the case in Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 127 (2006) DLT 300, where the Court noted that Section 24 could not be used when "the proceedings in the suit have fully and finally terminated and the Court below has become functus officio" (paragraph 10). Nevertheless, the Court noted that in cases such as the present one, where the provisions of Section 24 do not seem to apply, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 are apposite as "[i]t will be a travesty of justice if the proceedings have to commence de novo" (paragraph 16-7). It was also earlier held that:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - S R Bhat - Full Document

District Judge (C)-16: Delhi vs P. Pillai on 20 December, 2010

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff does not oppose the settle proposition of Law cited on behalf of the defendant. However, so far as the last judgment is concerned, the amendment of written statement was disallowed by Hon'ble Single Judge vide order reported as Hawkins Cooker Ltd. Vs. Citizen Metal Industries (India), 2007 (35) PTC 802 (Delhi). It was only pursuant to an agreement between the parties that the amendment was allowed by Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment cited by the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

U.N. Bhardwaj vs Y.N. Bhardwaj & Ors on 2 January, 2017

They have no difficulty with the ratio of the decisions in Ziff-Davis Inc.(supra) and Hawkins Cookers Limited (supra) being applied to this case also. There are some other respondents in CS(OS) 642/2005 who are not before us but we see no impediment in disposing of the present appeals in their absence. This is so because the power under Section 24 CPC can be exercised suo motu without notice to the parties. Section 24 CPC reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1