Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
Varun Maurya vs Sumit Chauhan on 7 October, 2024 cites

Varun Maurya vs Sumit Chauhan on 6 July, 2023

25. However, plaintiff has merit in claiming that the revocation of the L-10 licence cannot be treated as a force majeure, entitling NIRJA the defendant to rescend the contractual obligations. More so, BHATIA when the plea of such nature has not come on record as no Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2024.10.07 18:26:54 +0530 Varun Maurya Vs. Sumit Chauhan Page No. 18 of 31 written statement was filed nor the opportunity of cross- examination of plaintiff is effectively utilized, in which wake, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant cannot seek to avoid its liability under a force majeure clause gains pertinence and in which context, it is redundant to discuss as to whether defendant could have carried any other business from the demised premises as no such plea at any stage has been raised for defendant to resist or answer except by way of a feeble suggestion in cross- examination which also is denied by plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document

M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015

41. Additionally, while assuming towards the entitlement of forfeiture of security deposit the plaintiff was as per law discussed above and again is taken note in M. C. Aggarwal (HUF) Vs. Sahara India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3715, the security deposit is to be treated as earnest which is against subject to proof of loss as is held in Kailash Nath (supra), relevant para of which is reproduced herein below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 564 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh on 2 May, 2006

20. Moreover, the veracity of invoices could have been established through the accounts/ returns of the plaintiff. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that plaintiff did not make any effort in the said direction to prove the veracity of the contents of the invoices, by showing any further no proof of deposit to GST is matched on the record to lend credence and corroboration to the piece of statements. In which case, reliance on above to seek corroboration of entitlement fell way short of the requisite. While this Court is conscious of the proceedings being majorly uncontested for defendant's failure to file written statement, however, for this above reason alone, the plaintiff cannot be absolved of the burden of proof as per Sections 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, which puts the plaintiff under duty as plaintiff would fail if the burden of his entitlement is undischarged as is held in Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) NIRJA BHATIA 5 SCC 558.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 391 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next