Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)
Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt Ltd vs Imperia Structure Limited & Ors on 10 May, 2019 cites

Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. vs Vikram Hingorani & Ors on 31 January, 2014

13. No person having any legal acumen, as the advocate of defendants in this case, would make unequivocal admission of the claim. What has to be seen is, whether the defence pleaded, has any chance of succeeding in law and if the answer is in the negative, a decree on admissions or under Order XV of CPC or a summary judgment under Order XIII A of the CPC as applicable to commercial disputes read with Chapter X-A of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, has to follow. Reference in this regard may be made to ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Vikram Hingorani 2014 SCC OnLine Del 478 summarising the position in this regard and SLP(C) No.8694-8696 of 2014 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 25th April, 2018.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Ors vs Anton Elis Farel & Ors on 6 March, 2006

17. The law is different. It has been held in (i) Gunwantbhai Mulchan Shah Vs. Anton Elis Farel (2006)3 SCC 634; (ii) Rathnavathi Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 SCC 223; (iii) Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey (2016) 15 SCC 322; (iv) Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Ram Chander Goel AIR 2000 Del 96; (v) Ashok Kapoor Vs. Vidya Shankar Sharma 2008 SCC Online Del 1295; (vi) Hajarilal Vs. Phoolchand AIR 1957 MP 177; and, (vii) Brijpal Vs. PGF Limited 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7807 that if the date is fixed for performance, the second part providing "if no such date is fixed, when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused" would not apply, as is also evident from its bare language.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 95 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Rathnavathi & Anr vs Kavita Ganashamdas on 29 October, 2014

17. The law is different. It has been held in (i) Gunwantbhai Mulchan Shah Vs. Anton Elis Farel (2006)3 SCC 634; (ii) Rathnavathi Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 SCC 223; (iii) Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey (2016) 15 SCC 322; (iv) Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Ram Chander Goel AIR 2000 Del 96; (v) Ashok Kapoor Vs. Vidya Shankar Sharma 2008 SCC Online Del 1295; (vi) Hajarilal Vs. Phoolchand AIR 1957 MP 177; and, (vii) Brijpal Vs. PGF Limited 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7807 that if the date is fixed for performance, the second part providing "if no such date is fixed, when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused" would not apply, as is also evident from its bare language.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 132 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Madina Begun & Anr vs Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors on 1 August, 2016

17. The law is different. It has been held in (i) Gunwantbhai Mulchan Shah Vs. Anton Elis Farel (2006)3 SCC 634; (ii) Rathnavathi Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015) 5 SCC 223; (iii) Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey (2016) 15 SCC 322; (iv) Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Ram Chander Goel AIR 2000 Del 96; (v) Ashok Kapoor Vs. Vidya Shankar Sharma 2008 SCC Online Del 1295; (vi) Hajarilal Vs. Phoolchand AIR 1957 MP 177; and, (vii) Brijpal Vs. PGF Limited 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7807 that if the date is fixed for performance, the second part providing "if no such date is fixed, when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused" would not apply, as is also evident from its bare language.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 38 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next