Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ht Media Limited & Anr. vs Brainlink International, Inc. & Anr. on 17 December, 2021
5. Similarly, the Trial Court also relied upon the judgments of this
Court in Rajiv Sarin & Ors. vs. Directorate of Estate & Ors. [CS
(Comm) 12/2021, decided on 25.11.2021] and HT Media Limited &
Anr. vs. Brainlink International, Inc & Anr. [CS (Comm) 119/2020,
decided on 17.12.2021].
Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited on 14 February, 2022
In fact, as far as the judgment in Bharat
Kalra is concerned, it appears that a Special Leave Petition (C) No.
63/2022 is pending against the said judgment, in which the Supreme
Court has, by an order dated 28.01.2022, stayed further proceedings
before the Trial Court.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra on 12 August, 2021
4. By the impugned order dated 10.01.2022, the Trial Court has
negatived these contentions. Before the Trial Court, the defendant
relied inter alia upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, whereby the period of
limitation for various purposes was extended in the wake of pandemic.
The Trial Court, noting the judgments of the Supreme Court and this
Court relating to interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in the
context of commercial cases, found that the maximum time for filing
of the written statement had lapsed on 22.07.2021. Having regard to
the circulars issued by this Court from time to time with regard to the
virtual and physical hearings, the Trial Court observed that the
defendant could have placed his written statement on record within the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL CM(M) 130/2022 Page 2 of 9
Signing Date:09.03.2022
15:18:39
time granted. The medical grounds urged by the defendant and his
counsel were also disbelieved. The Trial Court relied upon a judgment
of this Court dated 12.08.2021 in CM (M) 429/2021 [Bharat Kalra vs.
Raj Kishan Chabra], wherein this Court held that the extension of
limitation granted by the Supreme Court could not be used to benefit
the litigant who was not diligent.