Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Sec. 100 -Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,66,220/- along with pendent lite and future interest- Sh. Raj Kumar vs. Sh. Darshan Chawla- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XLI Rule 27 — When additional evidence can be admitted- Sec. 73 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved-Nazir Mohamed vs. J. Kamala(2020) 19 SCC 57 —P. Chandrasekharan v. S. Kanakarajan (2007) 5 SCC 669-Appeal filed by the appellant is found to be devoid of merits, same is dismissed-The appellant has also failed to raise any substantial question of law—Appeal alongwith pending applications dismissed.
Held: (Paras- 6,7,9,10,12,16,17,19,20,21)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Limitation Act, 1963— Sec. 14 —Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9, 8 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by operational creditor- Insolvency resolution by operational creditor-Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 313- M.P. Steel Corpn. v. CCE (2015) 7 SCC 58-Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947-Orders passed by the NCLT and the NCLAT would also show that the proceedings were duly prosecuted with vigor and that the plaintiff was under the impression that they could pursue this legal remedy with success-Plaint allowed.
Held: (Paras- 4,10,12,14,18,19,20,24,25)
Result: Plaint allowed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Or. XXXVII Rule 3 Sub-Rule 5 — Summary suits-Rameshwar Marwari v. Upendranath Das Sarkar 1925 SCC OnLine Cal 62-Section 15 and 16 of the Indian Contract Act,1872- Coercion define-Undue influence define- Niaz Ahmed v. Indcap Enterprises2019 SCC OnLine Del 8931-Defendant's plea of coercion and undue influence lacks credibility, both in terms of timing and conduct post execution of the MOU - Defendant has failed to establish the existence of a substantial defence or even raise bona fide triable issues-Application dismissed.
Held: (Paras- 9,10,12,14,25,39,40,45,49,50, 59,60,64)
Result:Application dismissed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 —Or. XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 — Temporary injunctions and Interlocutory orders- Article 1.9 read with Article 1.12 and Article 1.24 and Article 4 of the Assignment Agreement to contend that delivery of 'Before Release Materials' and 'Theatrical Release Material' (collectively referred to as 'materials') have to be made at least 14 days prior to the release date of the Assigned Film- Article 13 of the Assignment Agreement to contend that there can be no waiver of any rights reserved to the plaintiff under the Assignment Agreement- Article 18 of the Assignment Agreement to contend that the plaintiff is entitled to seek injunctive relief against the defendant and this right is recognized under the Assignment Agreement-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Application is accordingly allowed; an injunction is hereby granted against the defendant, its agents, representatives and assigns or any person acting through the defendant from releasing the Assigned Film-Application disposed.
Held: (Paras- 9,10,12,13,19,20,24, 27,.32,34)
Result: Application disposed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11, 12,21 —Appointment of Arbitrators- Grounds for challenge—Commencement of arbitral proceedings—Petition is not time barred-court deems it apposite to refer the matter to the AT comprising of a Sole Arbitrator-Petition disposed.
Held: (Paras- 4,5,8,9,10,11,12)
Result: Petition disposed.
We feel pleasure to introduce ourselves as founder of the "Daily" reporter of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court Decisions, covering all the reportable, non-reportable judgments, Bail matters & important orders daily. The Journal "Apex-Decisions" is known for its prompt & complete reporting of Hon'ble Supreme Court & Delhi High Court judgments / orders every day since 1993.
Copyright © 2022 Apex Decisions Software, All rights Reserved. Designed By Techdost
