Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (3.60 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Ltd on 22 September, 2023

Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited on 24 December, 2024

4. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant/Plaintiff, as the proprietor of a firm called Molmek Enterprises [hereinafter referred to as "Molmek"], filed a Suit for Recovery being CS (Comm) No.324/2022 captioned as Ms. Sanjana Agarwal v. Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited before the learned Commercial Court against the Respondent/Defendant, i.e. Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as "NAPL"]. Both Molmek and NAPL are engaged in online trading of items like garments, electronics and general products. In August, 2018, Molmek and NAPL entered into an agreement for the supply by Molmek to NAPL, pursuant to which, supplies were made during the period from August, 2018 to February, 2019. In pursuance of this arrangement, Molmek supplied electronic goods to the NAPL against credit notes and invoices from August, 2018 to February, 2019, maintaining a running account in its books.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited on 24 December, 2024

4. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant/Plaintiff, as the proprietor of a firm called Molmek Enterprises [hereinafter referred to as "Molmek"], filed a Suit for Recovery being CS (Comm) No.324/2022 captioned as Ms. Sanjana Agarwal v. Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited before the learned Commercial Court against the Respondent/Defendant, i.e. Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as "NAPL"]. Both Molmek and NAPL are engaged in online trading of items like garments, electronics and general products. In August, 2018, Molmek and NAPL entered into an agreement for the supply by Molmek to NAPL, pursuant to which, supplies were made during the period from August, 2018 to February, 2019. In pursuance of this arrangement, Molmek supplied electronic goods to the NAPL against credit notes and invoices from August, 2018 to February, 2019, maintaining a running account in its books.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Mohinder Kumar Gandhi vs Praveen Kumar on 8 October, 2025

22.6. Sixthly, reliance placed by appellant/plaintiff upon Sanjana Aggarwal v Namashivai Apparel Pvt. Ltd. 2024:DHC:9987, to infer that the Trial Court failed to draw adverse inference laid down in Rule 138(12) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is wholly misplaced, as none of additional supporting documents were substantiated in the present case, which deem to have been relied upon by the Division Bench to reach to the adverse inference. The relevant part of the judgment, whereby the Division Bench of this Court considered other corroborative evidence produced on record before accepting the presumption under Rule 138(12) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is extracted below for ease of reference:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Central Restaurant And Cafe vs Bhavin Tolia on 18 July, 2025

NC: 2025:KHC:27021 WP No. 4479 of 2025 HC-KAR remedy provided for in Section 12A of the said Act. In this context it must be noted that ordinarily a counter-claim can only be entertained provided such counter-claim is filed along with the written statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code. Such claim/cause of action may arise not only before the filing of the suit but even after filing of the suit provided the same accrues before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivery of defence has expired. Having regard thereto, if the defendant chooses not to file counter-claim and waits for having its remedy by the way of mediation, the defendant may lose its valuable right of filing a counter-claim, since the said Act provides for outer time limit within which written statement is required to be filed. This apart, considering the object of the said Act, which is to ensure speedy resolution of the commercial dispute, any steps taken by the defendant to delay the filing of the written statement by reasons of pendency of a pre-institution mediation would defeat the very object for which the said Act has been enacted. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that there is no requirement in law for proceeding with pre-institution mediation prior to filing of a counter-claim. Similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of Sanjana Agarwal (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Arora Proprieter Of M/S ... vs M/S S K Enterprises Through Its ... on 7 January, 2026

37. The plaintiff has relied upon the para 38 and 39 of the judgement in the case of Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble HC has discussed rule 138 (11) and (12) of The CGST Act and observed that e-way bills are available on the common portal of the supplier and the recipient and if the person to whom the goods are supplied does not communicate his acceptance or rejection within 72 hours, he shall be deemed to have accepted the goods.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ogo Usa Inc vs Krishna Tissue Pvt. Ltd on 9 January, 2025

Having regard thereto, if the defendant chooses not to file counter-claim and waits for having its remedy by the way of mediation, the defendant may lose its valuable right of filing a counter-claim, since the said Act provides for outer time limit within which written statement is required to be filed. This apart, considering the object of the said Act, which is to ensure speedy resolution of the commercial dispute, any steps taken by the defendant to delay the filing of the written statement by reasons of pendency of a pre-institution mediation would defeat the very object for which the said Act has been enacted. Having regard thereto, I am of the view that there is no requirement in law for 11 proceeding with pre-institution mediation prior to filing of a counter-claim. Similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of Sanjana Agarwal (supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next