Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.32 seconds)
Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023 cites

Metro Tyres Ltd. & Ors. vs Satpal Singh Bhandari & Ors. on 1 September, 2011

11. Yet another decision which was cited for our consideration was that of Metro Tyres Ltd. & Ors. v. Satpal Singh Bhandari & Ors.12 handed down by a Division Bench of our Court. Following the judgment in Kamal Kumar Dutta and the various other decisions of 11 (2017) 4 SCC 723 12 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3681 LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 22 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 the Supreme Court following the principles laid down therein, the Division Bench observed as under: -
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - D Misra - Full Document

N.G. Nanda And Others vs Shri Gurbax Singh And Others on 18 October, 2010

Mr. Anand also drew our attention to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of our Court in N.G. Nanda & Ors. v. Gurbax Singh & Ors.14, which again dealt with the scope and ambit of Section 100-A of the Code. It becomes pertinent to note that the aforesaid judgment was rendered in the context of the civil court disallowing an application for setting aside the abatement of a suit and the appeal which was taken in that respect before a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had proceeded to allow the said appeal permitting the impleadment of the heirs of the deceased in the suit proceedings. The said order of the learned Single Judge was assailed by way of an LPA before the Division Bench of our Court. That appeal came to be dismissed as being not maintainable in light of Section 100-A of the Code. The decision cited for our consideration in N.G. Nanda was one which was handed out on the review petition which came to be preferred. The review petition was rejected and the original decision of the Division Bench was reaffirmed.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Avtar Narain Behal vs Subhash Chander Behal on 20 October, 2008

13. It becomes pertinent to note that the Division Bench had originally rejected the LPA bearing in mind the decision rendered by a Full Bench of our Court in Avtar Narain Behal v. Subhash Chander Behal.15 In Avtar Narain Behal the Full Bench was called upon to answer the question of whether an LPA would be maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court pronounced upon a first appeal. The Full Bench while answering the question in the negative held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 5 - A P Shah - Full Document

Mahli Devi vs Chander Bhan And Others on 23 March, 1995

21. This would be an appropriate juncture for this Court to notice some of the additional judgments which were cited by Mr. Sibal in support of his submission that the appeal would be maintainable under the Letters Patent. Mr. Sibal firstly drew our attention to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Mahli Devi v. Chander LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 50 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 Bhan & Ors.21, which was considering the issue of whether an LPA under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent would be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - A Kumar - Full Document

Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr. on 18 May, 2023

60. However, and before we proceed to consider the decision handed down by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Narain Behal, it would be apposite to notice two recent decisions which were rendered in the context of the 1999, TM Act and whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against a judgment rendered by a learned Judge while entertaining an appeal under the aforesaid statute. The question firstly fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Phonepe Private Limited and Anr.31. While Section 100-A of the Code was not adverted to, the Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd., did have an occasion to notice Section 76 of the 1940 TM Act as well as Section 109(5) of the 1958 TM Act. The Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. went on to make the following pertinent observations in this regard:
Delhi High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

V. R. Holdings vs Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr. on 4 August, 2023

63. Reverting to Avtar Narain Behal, we find that the subject matter of the said decision were proceedings which had been initiated before a District Judge under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and which had then proceeded to see the filing of an appeal before a Single Judge of this Court in terms of Section 299 thereof. It is pertinent to note at this stage that Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, also imported the provisions of the Code to such an appeal and thus stood on an identical plane as Section 76 (3) of the 1940 TM Act and Section 109(8) of the 1958 TM Act. The Full Bench of our Court in Avtar Narain Behal, upon due consideration ultimately came to hold that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Subal Paul and P.S. Sathappan, were authoritative pronouncements on the letters patent power being taken away by an appropriate legislative measure. The Court in Avtar Narain Behal also read and interpreted Kamal Kumar Dutta, as being an authority for the proposition that a letters patent appeal against a decision rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising under a special statute would be barred by Section 100-A of the Code. Further, it was observed that the non-obstante clause as embodied in Section 100-A of the Code was a clear indication of the intent of the Legislature to completely bar an LPA which may be preferred against a judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order. The Full Bench LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 108 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 went on further to hold that the language of Section 100-A of the Code cannot be construed as restricting the exclusion of the right of appeal under the Letters Patent only to matters arising under the Code and not under other enactments.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document
1