Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Dr.Murali Krishnan vs M/S. Glider Pharma Distributors Pvt. ... on 24 October, 2019 cites

Taipack Limited And Ors. vs Ram Kishore Nagar Mal on 23 May, 2007

17. Furthermore, the first defendant's counsel also put forth the contention that as per the invoices under which the plaintiff had taken the delivery of the goods stipulate that the goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged and when as per the letter of appointment, the plaintiff is necessitated to take the delivery of the goods only against advance payment, according to her, accepting the conditions incorporated in the invoices, the plaintiff having taken the delivery of the goods, according to her, on the basis of the same also, the plaintiff is not entitled to return the unsold goods. However, the plaintiff's counsel would rely upon the judgments reported in 2007 (3) ARBLR 402 Delhi (Taipack Limited And Ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal), 1999 (2) BomCR 734 (M/s. Divya Shivlaks Impex Vs. 18/26 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.508 of 2011 Shantilal Jamnadas Textiles (P), 142 (2007) DLT 798 (Grammy communications Pvt Ltd. vs. B.P.L. Telecom Pvt. Ltd.) and the decision of the Apex Court dated 17.12.2008 passed in Civil appeal No.7352 of 2008 (M/s. Vijay Industries Vs. M/s. NATL Technologies Limited) for the contention that the conditions incorporated in the invoices should not be read as the contract or agreement entered into between the parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 60 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965

21. The argument has also been put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendants cannot be allowed to put forth new pleas in the first appeal than what has been pleaded before the trial Court. The first defendant's counsel has not placed any new plea than what had been taken before the trial Court. When it has been clearly averred in the written statement that the letter of appointment does not enable the plaintiff to return the unsold goods and claim the value of the same and also put forth that it is only the plaintiff who has to distribute the products under its own network of distributors and in such view of the matter, the argument advanced by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant's counsel is projecting new pleas than what had been taken in the written statement, as such, cannot be accepted and therefore, in this connection, the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in (1966) 2 SCR 286 (Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul), (2018) 11 SCC 652 (Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar), (1997) 4 SCC 481 (Bibi Jaibunisha Jagdish Pandit and others) and 1994 SCC Online Bom 528 (Conrad Dias of Bombay Vs. Joseph Dias of Bombay), as rightly put forth by the first defendant's counsel, has no applicability to the case at hand and it has to be held that no new plea had been taken by the first defendant in the first appeal than what had been put forth in the written statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 277 - Full Document

Sri Shivaji Balaram Haibatti vs Sri Avinash Maruthi Pawar on 20 November, 2017

21. The argument has also been put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendants cannot be allowed to put forth new pleas in the first appeal than what has been pleaded before the trial Court. The first defendant's counsel has not placed any new plea than what had been taken before the trial Court. When it has been clearly averred in the written statement that the letter of appointment does not enable the plaintiff to return the unsold goods and claim the value of the same and also put forth that it is only the plaintiff who has to distribute the products under its own network of distributors and in such view of the matter, the argument advanced by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant's counsel is projecting new pleas than what had been taken in the written statement, as such, cannot be accepted and therefore, in this connection, the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in (1966) 2 SCR 286 (Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul), (2018) 11 SCC 652 (Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar), (1997) 4 SCC 481 (Bibi Jaibunisha Jagdish Pandit and others) and 1994 SCC Online Bom 528 (Conrad Dias of Bombay Vs. Joseph Dias of Bombay), as rightly put forth by the first defendant's counsel, has no applicability to the case at hand and it has to be held that no new plea had been taken by the first defendant in the first appeal than what had been put forth in the written statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 42 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Conrad Dias Of Bombay vs Joseph Dias Of Bombay on 26 October, 1994

21. The argument has also been put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendants cannot be allowed to put forth new pleas in the first appeal than what has been pleaded before the trial Court. The first defendant's counsel has not placed any new plea than what had been taken before the trial Court. When it has been clearly averred in the written statement that the letter of appointment does not enable the plaintiff to return the unsold goods and claim the value of the same and also put forth that it is only the plaintiff who has to distribute the products under its own network of distributors and in such view of the matter, the argument advanced by the plaintiff's counsel that the first defendant's counsel is projecting new pleas than what had been taken in the written statement, as such, cannot be accepted and therefore, in this connection, the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in (1966) 2 SCR 286 (Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul), (2018) 11 SCC 652 (Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar), (1997) 4 SCC 481 (Bibi Jaibunisha Jagdish Pandit and others) and 1994 SCC Online Bom 528 (Conrad Dias of Bombay Vs. Joseph Dias of Bombay), as rightly put forth by the first defendant's counsel, has no applicability to the case at hand and it has to be held that no new plea had been taken by the first defendant in the first appeal than what had been put forth in the written statement.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Grammy Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs B.P.L. Telecom Pvt. Ltd. on 22 August, 2007

17. Furthermore, the first defendant's counsel also put forth the contention that as per the invoices under which the plaintiff had taken the delivery of the goods stipulate that the goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged and when as per the letter of appointment, the plaintiff is necessitated to take the delivery of the goods only against advance payment, according to her, accepting the conditions incorporated in the invoices, the plaintiff having taken the delivery of the goods, according to her, on the basis of the same also, the plaintiff is not entitled to return the unsold goods. However, the plaintiff's counsel would rely upon the judgments reported in 2007 (3) ARBLR 402 Delhi (Taipack Limited And Ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal), 1999 (2) BomCR 734 (M/s. Divya Shivlaks Impex Vs. 18/26 http://www.judis.nic.in A.S.No.508 of 2011 Shantilal Jamnadas Textiles (P), 142 (2007) DLT 798 (Grammy communications Pvt Ltd. vs. B.P.L. Telecom Pvt. Ltd.) and the decision of the Apex Court dated 17.12.2008 passed in Civil appeal No.7352 of 2008 (M/s. Vijay Industries Vs. M/s. NATL Technologies Limited) for the contention that the conditions incorporated in the invoices should not be read as the contract or agreement entered into between the parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - M Sarin - Full Document
1