Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 16 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 December, 2015
He also drew
our attention to a decision in the latter judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company
Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private
Limited, reported in 2015 [16] SCC 20 in which, it was held
that the district forum under the Consumer Protection Act can
grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for
filing his version or reply and not beyond that.
Section 13 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 26 February, 2015
13.2 Now so far as submission/request on behalf
of the petitioner to exercise power under Article 226
of the Constitution and to permit the petitioner
herein-original defendant to place on record the
written statement to do substantial justice is
concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted
that as such there is no such prayer in the petition.
The present petition is as such filed under Article
227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned
order passed by the learned Judge, Commercial
Court, Ahmedabad passed below Application Exh.
14 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 328 of 2016 by
which the learned Judge has rejected the said
application preferred by the petitioner-original
defendant and has refused to take on record the
written statement which as such was submitted/
presented beyond the period of 120 days of the
Page 11 of 33
C/SCA/11710/2018 JUDGMENT
service of summons There is no such prayer and/or
averments made in the petition requesting to
exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution
and to permit the defendant to place on record the
written statement Even in the cause title also the
petition is described as the one preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even
otherwise, as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam &
Anr. vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. [Supra] and in the
case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. [Supra], the order passed by a Civil
Court is only amendable to be scrutinized by the
High Court in exercise of powers under Article 227
of the Constitution only which is different from
Article 226 of the Constitution.
Section 8 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
1