Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suppression must be of a fact
which would have had a direct bearing on the relief sought. It is
well settled that suppression of material facts must be specific,
deliberate and material to the adjudication of the dispute. Mere
denial of the opposite party's version does not amount to
suppression. Vague allegations of concealment without particulars
cannot be accepted. In the present case, no such concealment has
CS (Comm) No.548/2023
M/S DNS ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. Vs. M/S OTTOMATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. DoJ 03.01.2026 Page 14 of 38
been established. Hence, Issue No. 2 is decided against the
defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
28. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Before
proceeding further it would be important to find out the nature of
relationship forged between the parties. In other words the primary
controversy between the parties revolves around the nature of the
transaction - whether it was an outright sale or a distributorship
arrangement with credit and return obligations. Admittedly there
does not exist written terms of the agreement between the parties
and neither parties have pleaded so. In Kailash Nath Associates v.
DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acted on the
conduct of parties for interpreting contractual obligations where
written terms were absent or ambiguous. Thus, in the present case
also conduct of the parties since beginning till the arising of
dispute would be the guiding torchlight for unearthing the real
nature of transaction/relationship between the parties.
Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors on 18 October, 2001
In Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367, the
Supreme Court held interest must be reasonable. In the case of
Cimmco Limited Versus Pramod Krishna Agrawal 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 7289, it was held as follows:
Rajendra Construction Company vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ... on 12 August, 2005
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates
of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente
lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance
is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction
Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005)
6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,
(2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
"3..........Hon'ble Supreme Court has now mandated that lower rates
of interest be granted and therefore the pre-suit and also the pendente
lite and future interest is liable to be reduced by this Court. Reliance
is placed upon the judgments in the cases of Rajendra Construction
Co. v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, (2005)
6 SCC 678, McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,
(2006) 11 SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs G. Harischandra Reddy And Anr on 10 January, 2007
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009
1