Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
Sandeep Garg vs Manoj Jain on 30 September, 2024 cites

Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne And Anr vs Pyrotek India Private Limited And Ors on 13 December, 2021

5. Pertinent to mention here that the defendant has raised the issue of limitation by filing an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC. The same was duly considered by the court in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & Anr. Vs. Pyrotek India Pvt. Ltd. Ors., Civil Appeal No. of 2022 @ Special Leave Petition © No. Digitally 2522/2022 and Suo Motu Writ Petition © No.3 of 2020 and since the signed by MUKESH MUKESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA extension of limitation was granted by Hon'ble supreme Court of India, GUPTA Date:
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - B Dangre - Full Document

P.D. Verma And Co. vs Laxmi Builders on 29 October, 2014

Though ideally the plaintiff ought to have proved the letter of HDFC Bank filed during the course of arguments by leading evidence, however, keeping in view that the objection is more of a hyper technical nature and the plaintiff has repeatedly described himself and signed as proprietor of Commercial House with its stamp, the same can be taken in the light of fact that hyper technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the purpose of justice, more so, when the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in P.D. Verma (supra) has already held that the sole proprietorship firm and the name of sole proprietor can be used interchangeably.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 22 - A K Pathak - Full Document

Svapn Constructions vs Idpl Employees Cooperative Group ... on 20 December, 2005

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392 titled Svapan Constructions Vs. IBPL Employees Cooperative Group House Societies Ltd. & Ors. AA No. 255/1997, DOD 20.12.2005 while relying upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in 115 (2004) DLT 471 (DB) titled Miraj Marketing Cooperation Vs. Vishakha Engineering has succinctly reiterated the aforesaid law.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 53 - A Kumar - Full Document

Miraj Marketing Corporation vs Vishaka Engineering And Anr. on 23 November, 2004

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392 titled Svapan Constructions Vs. IBPL Employees Cooperative Group House Societies Ltd. & Ors. AA No. 255/1997, DOD 20.12.2005 while relying upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in 115 (2004) DLT 471 (DB) titled Miraj Marketing Cooperation Vs. Vishakha Engineering has succinctly reiterated the aforesaid law.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 106 - M Sharma - Full Document

Kalu Ram Kole vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Mcrc/9466/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018

22. Adverting to the Legal Demand Notice dated 03.05.2023 Ex. PW1/7, the same has been sent by the plaintiff through registered Speed Post, Receipts of which got proved on record as Ex.PW1/8 (colly). The legal notice was sent to the defendant through registered post and the postal receipt has been proved as Ex.PW1/8 and the defendant has to reply the same within 30 days but he has not replied to. The defendants have failed to pay the amount despite such demand or refute the same by issuing a counter legal notice to the same. It is settled proposition of law that once a legal notice has been received by defendant, he is required to respond thereto, failure of which, will lead to an adverse presumptions. Reliance placed on 1980 RLR (Note) 44 titled Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 179 - Full Document
1   2 Next