Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.35 seconds)
Documents citing Ht Media Limited & Anr. vs Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr. on 17 December, 2021

Machine Tools Aids India vs Ms Gnc Infra Llp & Anr. on 6 January, 2023

e. The judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court in HT Media Limited & Ors. vs. Brainlink International, Inc. & Ors. (supra), is distinguishable on facts. In that case, summons were indeed issued by the Court by its order and the defendant in that case had started appearing, though without filing his Signature Not Verified written statement. Thus, the Coordinate Bench was of the Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR CM(M) 1325/2022 19 Signing Date:10.01.2023 16:14:51 Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000160 opinion that the appearance by defendant would amount to waiver of service of the summons of the suit. However, in the present case, the Trial Court itself was satisfied after scrutinizing its record that no order to issue summons was at all passed by the Trial Court nor was any summons issued.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - T R Gedela - Full Document

Ms Charu Agrawal vs Mr Alok Kalia & Ors. on 1 March, 2023

40. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Joint Registrar has categorically found that the summons stood duly served on 21 May 2022. The written statement was originally presented on 13 October 2022 and then refiled on 27 October 2022. The Joint Registrar has also found that the Defendant No.1 also stood duly served with notice of the application seeking interim injunction via speed post. The judgment of the Court in HT Media Limited Vs. Brainlink International Inc.21, and which was cited by learned counsel for the Plaintiff, would appear to additionally shut out the challenge that is raised in the instant Chamber Appeal. The Defendant No. 1 appears to have been duly placed on notice in that respect on 21 April 2022. The written statement clearly came to be filed beyond the maximum 21 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5398 CS(OS) 214/2022 Page 48 of 49 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:01.03.2023 16:09:59 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001454 period prescribed and when computed either from 21 April 2022 or 21 May 2022. The written statement was admittedly filed beyond the maximum time prescribed by Rule 4. In view of the above, the Joint Registrar was clearly justified in taking the written statement off the record.
Delhi High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 2 - Y Varma - Full Document

Niranjan Majumdar vs Tejpal & Ors. on 10 March, 2023

20. The aforesaid judgment of this court in HT Media Limited (supra) is completely inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is not that the petitioner was actively participating in the proceedings before the concerned ARC, leading up to the judgment/order dated 02.12.2021; in fact, the petitioner did not appear before the ARC after 27.03.2021. In its application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the petitioner cited the difficulties occasioned during the prevalent pandemic conditions as the justification for non- appearance.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr vs M/S Vikas Wsp Ltd & Ors on 24 September, 2025

24. By way of analogy, he would further submit that if a plaintiff were to institute a suit during the extended period and the defendant filed a written statement within the prescribed time, the plaintiff could not later invoke the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Covid orders to seek further time for filing a rejoinder, and in the same manner, once the ED elected to proceed under the statutory framework during the pandemic, it cannot selectively ―pause the clock‖ for its convenience. This reasoning, he would contend, is fortified by this Court's decision in HT Media Limited v. Brainlink International 18, wherein it was held that a party choosing to act within time during the extension period cannot later claim exclusion of time, a view subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brainlink International, Inc. v. HT Media Ltd.19.
Delhi High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next