SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Del) 204

MANMOHAN SARIN, M.RAO
LIBERTY SALES SERVICE – Appellant
Versus
JAKKI MULL AND SONS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, MADAN BHATIA, MUKUL ROHTAGI, P.D.GUPTA, P.M.SINGH, S.K.MANIKTALA

M. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant and has Filed this FAO against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1. 10. 1996. This order was passed in a group of I. As. and in Suit No. 264/94 which was initially Filed by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction and was later transferred to the High Court and registered as Suit No. 997 of 1996. It was so transferred with a view to be tried along with Suit No. 885 of 1994 Filed by the same appellant in the High Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) BEFORE the transfer the plaintiff-appellant obtained an ex parte injunction order on 2. 4. 94 from the Sub-Judge which was vacated on 15. 4. 94 by the Sub-Judge. Then plaintiff Filed Suit No. 885/94 under Section 20 of the. Arbitration Act in High Court and again got an interim order 23. 5. 94 which was made absolute on 1. 3. 95. Under the impugned-order dated 1. 10. 96, the learned Single Judge held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not that of sub-tenant and tenant respectively but was that of Agent and Principal. The transferred Suit No. 997 of 1996 Filed by the appellant for perma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top