Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Niwas Gupta vs M/S Om Propmart (P) Ltd. & Ors. on 2 February, 2012

Sh. Hari Niwas Gupta vs ) State Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 April, 2014

8 Immediately, thereafter there appeared to be another agreement to sell dated 02.04.2008 purported to have been executed between the accused company and the petitioner herein which was subsequently also modified by way of a Memorandum of Understanding alleged to have been executed on 24.05.2008 whereby the schedule of repayment of the money to the petitioner was allegedly mentioned and another clause i.e. Clause No. 11 of the said Memorandum of Understanding provided that the plot in question was to be sold by the accused persons within a period of one year and if same had been done then the petitioner was supposed to return those cheques to the accused persons. However, those cheques themselves bear the dates not beyond one year but the current dates commencing from July, 2008 till November, 2008 and on the strength of these documents, it has been submitted by the learned CR No. 91/2/14 Page No.5/12 Hari Niwas Gupta v. The State & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar Sharma vs Krishan Kumar Mehto on 13 April, 2015

23. The defense raised by the defendant cannot be said to be moonshine and at this stage it appears to be more plausible and reasonable. Reliance can be placed upon Hari Niwas Gupta "supra). So in view of the facts and circumstances the defendant has raised triable issue which cannot be decided without affording an opportunity to both the parties to contest the suit on merit. Accordingly the application filed by the defendant U/o 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC is hereby allowed. The defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. Application is disposed off accordingly. Now put up for filing of WS by the defendant on 11-05-2015.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samir Jasuja vs M/S Assotech Realty Private Ltd. & Ors. on 21 October, 2013

15. He also places reliance on Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. Om Propmart (P) Ltd. & Ors., 187(2012) Delhi Law Times 285, wherein the Court had held CS(OS) No. 2229/2009 Page 11 of 35 that where the plaintiff had not made full disclosure of the facts in the plaint, the defence raised by the defendant called for allowing the application to seek leave to defend, as the defendants had raised triable issues.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

M/S Scj Plastics Ltd vs M/S Amitex Polymers Pvt. Ltd on 1 July, 2015

(e) Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. Om Propmart Pvt Ltd. & Anr 187 (2012) DLT 285:­ In para no.30 it was held that:­ Order 37 CPC has been included in the Code of Civil Procedure in order to allow a person, who has a clear and undisputed claim in respect of any monetary dues, to recover the dues quickly by a summary procedure instead of taking the long route of a regular suit. If the affidavit discloses a triable issue by way of pleas which is at least plausible then the leave should be granted but, defence should be legal and even through it ultimately may not turn out to be a good defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Harish Karra vs Shri Sunil Gupta on 3 August, 2013

In view thereof, the judgments 187 (2012) DLT 285 titled as "Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. Om Propmart P. Ltd. & Ors."; 187 (2012) DLT 333 5/6 Sh. Harish Karra Vs. Sh. Sunil Gupta (DB) case titled as "Krishan Kumar Karnani Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr."; 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) SC 308 case titled as "Tatipamula Naga Raju Vs. Patte Padmavathi"; and AIR 2011 Delhi 341 case titled as "Goyal Tax Fab.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Niwas Gupta vs . M/S. Om Propmart (P) Ltd. & Ors. on 1 October, 2013

156(3) Cr.P.C. for seeking direction to SHO, P.S. Tilak Marg for registration of FIR against the accused. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are as follows:­ Accused no.1 is primarily doing business of real estate agent and accused no.2, 3 and 4 are its Directors. The complainant was intending to purchase an industrial plot and therefore he engaged accused persons for negotiating an industrial plot and made payment of Rs.15 lakhs in the name of accused no.1 for purchasing an industrial plot in Tronica City, Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. On 28.05.2008, the complainant made further payment of Rs.35 lakhs on the insistence of accused no.2, 3 and 4, but in the month of June, 2008 the accused persons found themselves unable to meet the commitment to secure viable and good purchase of industrial plot and therefore agreed to refund the abovesaid amount of Rs.50 lakhs by issuing five postdated cheques. But these cheques got dishonoured on presentation due to the reason "Insufficient Funds" and the complainant filed a complaint U/Sec.138 N.I. Act on 09.03.2009 against the accused. The complainant also filed a Civil Suit under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. M/s. Om Propmart (P) Ltd. & Ors. CC No.21/1/13 Page 3 of 5 CS (OS) No.951/2010 titled as "Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. Om Propmart Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." for recovery of Rs.50 lakhs and in the month of September, 2010, the accused persons filed application under O.37 R.3(5) C.P.C. for seeking unconditional leave to defend and alongwith said application they filed Agreement dated 02.04.2008 and MOU dated 24.05.2008. But the complainant had never executed these documents. His signatures were forged by the accused persons by using modern computer technique like scanning and printing. The accused had committed forgery with ulterior and malafide motive to acquire wrongful gain. The complainant had approached one handwriting expert who had given his opinion regarding the documents being forged documents. The complainant had approached the police, but no action was taken by the police.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Akeel Ahmed vs Mahesh Kumar on 10 September, 2012

6. Before this Court, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant / defendant has argued that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in a matter relating leave to defend a summary suit, the defendant will be entitled to leave to defend where he raises a triable issue. Counsel for appellant relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in the cases of Rana Inderjeet Singh Vs. Kembiotic Laboratories reported in 2009 (3) CCC 465 Delhi and Hari Niwas Gupta Vs. Om Propmart (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (2)CLJ 484 Delhi.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Unimrkt Research Pvt Ltd vs Rakesh Gandhi on 4 January, 2016

Similarly, Hari Niwas Gupta (supra) case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case which discussed the necessity of disclosing of true facts in the summary proceedings. As per the plaintiff's case all the facts relevant to the fact in issue in the present suit have already been disclosed in the plaint and no document relevant to the present litigation can be said to have been withheld by the plaintiff. Both the aforesaid judgments are accordingly not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1