Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Roopa Devi on 5 November, 2020

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roopa Devi and Ors. (CA No. 3641/2020) to submit that in a similar situation, the Supreme Court while dealing with a MACT matter, had observed that a pre-requisite for entertaining the appeal, such as a pre-deposit, could not affect the power of the High Court to put a more stringent condition as a part of the orders for admission or notice. Therefore, the NCDRC was fully justified in directing a full deposit of the decretal amount.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

(Exemption) Omaxe Buildhome Pvt Ltd vs Ibrat Faizan on 15 July, 2021

11. It is the considered view of this Court, that the interest of justice would be met by following the view taken by the Supreme Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd(supra). In that case, though 50 per cent of the decretal amount had been deposited under Section 51 of the new Act, when the appeal had been filed, but the NCDRC while disposing of the stay application, had directed the deposit of the entire decretal amount with the SCDRC, subject to which execution was stayed. This order was modified by the Supreme Court agreeing with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the statutory intent did not require the NCDRC to direct the deposit of the entire decretal amount or to stipulate that without such deposit, there would be no interim relief. The fact situation is similar to the present one, even if, this is a case under the old Act, since, the impugned order is post the pre- deposit for filing the appeal and at the time of grant of stay. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be therefore accepted that this judgment cannot be followed in the present case.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A Menon - Full Document
1