Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjeev Jain vs Rajni Dhingra & Ors. on 19 December, 2018

Punjab National Bank vs Virender Kumar on 4 June, 2025

17 The onus to prove these issues are on plaintiff. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, admittedly, Virender Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh Devi are not having any privity of contract with the plaintiff. Originally, the loans were taken by one Sh. Balbir Singh (father of defendant no.1 Virender Kumar and husband of Smt. Kamlesh Devi, defendant no.2). Admittedly, this Balbir Singh died before filing of this case. So, defendants no. 1 and 2 were impleaded on the premise that they inherited the assets of deceased Balbir Singh in terms of the law laid down in "Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra & Ors", CS (OS) 378/2018 DOD CS (Comm) No. 240/2024 Punjab National Bank Vs. Virender Kumar & Ors. Page 10/12 11 19.12.2018 DHC. As per this judgment, the suit is maintainable against legal heirs for the recovery of loan taken by predecessor who is not alive on the date of filing of the suit. So, defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 are also liable to pay the amount ascertained by the court.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs Simmi Dhiman on 3 January, 2024

26. The foremost point to be decided is that whether suit under order 37 CPC is maintainable against the L.Rs of the deceased. I have perused the judgments of case titled as Sanjeev Jain Vs Rajni Dhingra & Ors decided on 19.12.2018 and case titled as Sarvesh Bisaria Vs Hari Om Anand, in CS(OS) 160/2020 & I.A.5214/2020, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that suit under order 37 CPC is maintainable against the L.Rs of the deceased.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Rekha Jain And Ors (Lrs Of Sh. Surender ... on 4 July, 2024

21. During course of arguments, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff bank against the three LRs of Surender Jain (since deceased), proprietor of M/s. V.S. Plastics (the borrower), who had passed away. He further argued that even if the aforesaid borrower had passed away, the present suit is maintainable against his 03 LRs, who are the defendants herein, and the decree can be passed against the said LRs/defendants in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Jain Vs Rajni Dhingra & Ors, CS (OS) 378/2018 & I.A. 16982/2018, CS No. 726/2022 Punjab National Bank Vs Rekha Jain & Ors. Page 9 of 14 dated 19.12.2018, wherein it was held in para nos. 13 and 15 as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Krishan Yadav vs Sunita And Others on 2 November, 2023

13. Above decision in Bank of Baroda (Supra) was reaffirmed in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Sanjeev Jain vs Rajni Dhingra & Ors. (CS(OS) 378/2018, wherein while rejecting leave to defend application, Hon'ble High court of Delhi held that, the defences CS DJ ADJ 969/21 Hari Krishan Yadav vs. Sunita & Ors. Page 6 of 7 available to the LRs under Section 52, CPC shall continue to be available in any execution of the present decree.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms Nisha @ Nisaba Godrej & Ors. vs Mr Chaitanya Kumar Rampal on 15 September, 2023

13. The matter in controversy is squarely covered by the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Sanjeev Jain Vs Rajni Dhinga & Ors." CS (OS) 378/2018, decided on 19.12.2019. The facts of the said case were almost similar to the present case. The only difference being, it was a case filed under Order XXXVII of CPC. In the said matter, similar arguments; were raised by legal representatives, who were impleaded as defendants. The High Court rejected the arguments and decreed the suit against the legal representatives. The observation made by the High Court answers the contention of defendants.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next