Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Ansal Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Big Brothers Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case involves parties and contract details. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against privity of contract. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court analysis on privity and agency. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judgment's relevance to exceptions in privity. (Para 14) |
| 5. court dismisses the application; order upheld. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
CM No.42517/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1081/2021 & CM No.42516/2021 (for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 6th October, 2021 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (Commercial Court) in a commercial suit bearing CS (COMM) No.165/2019, dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner (defendant no.2 in the suit) under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
4. Brief facts as set out in the impugned order are set out below:
4.1. The respondent herein, was awarded the contract for plumbing and sanitary works by the petitioner and the defendant no.1 with respect to work orders startin
Court upheld inclusion of petitioner in suit despite arguments against privity of contract, citing exceptions and agency doctrine, necessitating full factual evaluation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exceptions to the rule of privity of contract and the doctrine of agency require fact finding and due application of law, and may not warr....
Defendant No.2 cannot be considered a necessary or proper party to the suit as he cannot be made liable for the financial liabilities of defendant No.1.
The rejection of a plaint based on misjoinder of parties and causes of action is erroneous, and disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of....
The principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was central to the Court's decision, along with the consideration of evidence and suppression of relevant documents.
The amendments sought to the plaint were imperative for proper adjudication of the case and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case. The Court emphasized the applicability of Order XXX Ru....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
