Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H141
Falshaw, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The respondent Prithi Raj claims to be a displaced per. son from Lahore now residing at Delhi where he carries on the business of a building contractor. In 1949 he entered into a contract with the negistered society known as the Jamia Millia Islamia for the construction of a Teachers' Training Institute Hostel and according to his allegations completed the building in July 1951.He claimed that allowing for payments made by the Society and the material supplied by it a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- was still due to him and he therefore filed a petition before a Tribunal constituted under Act LXX of 1951 under Section 13 of that Act which deals with the claims by displaced creditors against persons who are not displaced debtors.The claim was resisted by the Society which denied that the subject-matter of the claim was a debt within the meaning of the Act, and also applied for the stay of proceedings before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H277
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a preliminary objection has been raised that such an appeal does not lie from the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Mahajan J.) who on 11th of April, 1967, partially allowed the appeal preferred from the order of Shri Gyani as a Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19392. A transport vehicle carrying passengers and belonging to the appellant, the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co., (P) Ltd struck two boys. Pardeep Kumar and Devinder Singh, riding on a bicycle on 27th April 1962. One of the two boys. Pardeep Kumar received serious injuries resulting in amputation of one leg and damage to the foot of the other side The father of Pardeep Kumar claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed damages to him to the extent of Rs. 7000/- Devinder Singh was awarded a sum of only Rs 700. These damages were payable by the appellant, which is the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h March, 2017. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 6. Mr. Prashant Tyati and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advs. for R-7. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rajeshwari, Ms. Aparna Gaur, Mr. Tahir A.J.and Mr. Gajendra, Advs. for R-5. AND CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana Shanker, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs. Versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant W.P.(C) No.1971/2014 & CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 Page 1 of 40 Through: Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Ms. Sutapa Jana and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. CORAM: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: October 12, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7911/2016, CM No.32744/2016 AISHWARYA ADHIKARI ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Mr.Vaibhav Vats and Ms.Soumya Maheshwari, Advs. Versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ginny J.Rautray and Ms. Anushka Ashok, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-"In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is prayed that this Honble Court in public interest may be pleased to:1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the report of W.P.(C) No.7911/2016 Page 1 of 39 the High Level Enquiry Committee set up by the respondent vide Office Order No.207/CP/2016 dated 22.8.2016 of the Vice Chancellor punishing the petitioner, and all other proceedings consequential to and arising out of the report of the High L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h March, 2017. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 6. Mr. Prashant Tyati and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advs. for R-7. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rajeshwari, Ms. Aparna Gaur, Mr. Tahir A.J.and Mr. Gajendra, Advs. for R-5. AND CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana Shanker, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs. Versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant W.P.(C) No.1971/2014 & CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 Page 1 of 40 Through: Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Ms. Sutapa Jana and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. CORAM: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!