Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Manisha Commercial Limited vs N.R. Dongre And Another on 24 December, 1999

Sh. Mohit vs Smt. Archana Kochar on 10 May, 2022

In support of his contention Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon S. M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj (2015) 9 SCC287, Balraj Taneja & Anr. v. Sunil Madan & Anr. (1999)8 SCC 396, Indu Singh v. Surender Kamboj & Ors. 278 (2021) DLT 65 (DB), Amit Kumar Chopra v. Narain Cold Storage & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 208 (2014) DLT 509 and Manisha Commercial Ltd. v. N. R. Dongre & Anr. 2000 (52) DRJ 578. Ld. Counsel for respondent has supported the judgement on admission.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nokia Technologies Oy vs Guangdong Oppo Mobile ... on 17 November, 2022

If vexed questions of fact or law are involved51, or where the opposite party has raised issues 46 2008 SCC OnLine Del 301 47 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3460 48 Express Towers P.TD v. Mohan Singh , (2007) 7 DRJ 687 (DB) 49 Manisha Commercial Ltd v. N.R. Dongre, AIR 2000 Delhi 176 50 Makali Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Dalhousie Properties Ltd., 2006 1 CHN 419 (Calcutta)(DB) Signature Not Verified 51 Manisha Commercial ibid Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (COMM) 303/2021 Page 51 of 86 Signing Date:22.11.2022 17:44:08 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004935 which go to the root of the matter52, or where the questions cannot be decided without evidence53, no decree on admissions can be passed under Order XII Rule 6. While examining whether there is any ―admission‖ as would justify passing a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6, the Court is required to read the documents as a whole, and it is not permissible to tear out lines from any document, divorced from the rest of the document, to hold that there is an admission.54
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - Full Document

M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs M/S. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... on 23 April, 2001

18. The learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Manisha Commercial Ltd. Vs. N.R. Dongre holding that the discretion was vested with the Court even if there is an unequivocal admission but passing of judgment would work injustice on it the decree could be declined. It was also submitted that plaintiff has yet to establish that it is constituted or incorporated company. the purportedly Resolution dated 13.7.1994 allegedly authorising Mr. C.M. Chadha is also to be proved by plaintiff and, therefore, keeping in view these averments as well as questions of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, extension of lease agreement and service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, this Court should not exercise its discretion in favor of the plaintiff. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the defendants in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case when the plaintiff has been able to establish that three ingredients for passing the decree for possession stand established and going by the record of this case, the Court is convinced that there is hardly any evidence raised by the defendants on these aspects which require any evidence. The denials are totally sham and/or other questions raise are purely legal which do not require any evidence. I see no reason not to allow this application and as purpose is going to be served even when the case to put for trial.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 102 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S. Shantez vs M/S. Applause Bhansali Films on 17 March, 2009

7. In the same Notice of Motion No.2561 of 2007, the Applicants had also claimed certain interim orders while titling the application as for decree on admission. It is a settled principle of law that the Order XII Rule 6 of the Code cannot be used where vexed and complicated questions or issues of law arise and it does not contemplate passing of interim orders. Reference in that regard can be made to the case of Manisha Commercial Ltd. V. N. R. Dongre & Anr., AIR 2000 Delhi 176 as well as to a judgment in the case of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:26 ::: 19 Gorivelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next