HIMA KOHLI
VEENA BAHL – Appellant
Versus
MANMOHAN BAHL – Respondent
1. The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2016 passed by the learned Joint Registrar, transferring the present suit to the court of the learned District Judge, South-East District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, in terms of the Notification dated 24.11.2015, issued under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court(Amendment) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the amendment Act’).
2. The ground for laying a challenge to the aforesaid order of transfer is that the learned Joint Registrar had failed to appreciate the concept of `specified value, as mentioned in Section 12 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `the Commercial Courts Act’), that was promulgated on 23.10.2015, and the present dispute squarely falls under the definition of `commercial dispute’, in terms of Section 2(c) (i), (xii) & (xxi) of the Commercial Courts Act. It has been averred in the appeal that on 5.1.2016, the appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 had filed an affidavit, detailing the ‘specified value’ in
Abdul Gafur and Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Dr. Subramanium Swamy vs. Ramakrishna Hedge
Govind Gopal & Ors. vs. Banwari Lal AIR 1983 Del 323
Horlicks Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Heinz India (Pvt.) Limited
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646
Subhashini Malik vs. S.K. Malik & Ors.
Sanofi Aventis vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. reported as 227 (2016) DLT 296
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.