Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Tata Motors Limited vs Jsc Vtb Bank on 31 March, 2016
However, he withdrew reliance upon the said judgment,
in view of the fact that the Division Bench, by its judgment dated
21.02.2013 in Tata Motors Limited v. JSC VTB Bank6, had reversed the
aforesaid judgment. A Special Leave Petition7 was filed challenging the
view taken by the Division Bench, but the Supreme Court declined special
leave to appeal, observing that the High Court was right in holding that the
courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Dhani Ram (Thrs Lrs) vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors. on 13 April, 2018
55. The judgment of the Supreme Court in C.K. Sasankan makes it clear
that the Court's discretion with regard to fixation of the rate of interest, is
to be exercised "properly, reasonably and on sound legal principles and
not arbitrarily". The Court found the rate of 25% per annum, granted by
Debts Recovery Tribunal in that case, to be excessive and instead granted
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In Dhani Ram, this Court referred
inter alia to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, and found the
plaintiff therein entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
C.K.Sasankan vs Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd on 27 February, 2009
54. In this connection, Mr. Batra drew my attention to Section 34 of the
CPC, which provides for grant of pendente lite interest at the rate
considered reasonable by the Court. He also cited the judgment of the
Supreme Court in C.K. Sasankan v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.14, and of this
Court in Dhani Ram v. Delhi Development Authority15.
Banque Nationale De Paris vs Globus Agronics Ltd & Anr. on 23 July, 1999
23. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Batra submitted that this Court
has jurisdiction, as the defendant No. 1 has its sole office in India at New
Delhi. While this is sufficient for the purposes of Section 20(a) of CPC,
Mr. Batra also submitted that part of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of this Court. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this
Court in a similar suit, concerning the defendant No. 1 itself, viz. Banque
Nationale De Paris v. Globus Agronics Ltd2. Mr. Batra also handed up to
the Court, a printout from the portal of the Supreme Court to show that
SLP(C) 11891/1999, filed by defendant No. 1 herein against the aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench, was dismissed on 27.08.1999.
1