Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, JASMEET SINGH
Ravinder Parkash Punj – Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Aggarwal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection and scope of the appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. survival of the appeal on specific orders (Para 3) |
| 3. closure of pending applications (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Court Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing (As per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):-Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Pramod Singhal accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2022, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2.1. Via order dated 29.01.2022, the learned District Judge has disposed of the appellant's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") as well as respondent no. 1's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
2.2. Mr Raman Gandhi, who appears on behalf of the appellant, fairly concedes that no appeal would lie against that part of the order dated 29.01.2022, whereby the appellant's application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC was rejected.
2.3. Mr Gandhi, thus, says that this appeal should be treated as an appeal confined to the latter part of the impugned order, in which directions were issued on respondent no.
The court emphasized the necessity for expediting trial proceedings in CPC applications concerning judgments on admissions and interim relief, establishing clear timelines for evidence submission and....
The main legal principle established is the court's authority to issue directions for expediting the trial and ensuring timely conclusion of proceedings.
Timely filing of replies to interlocutory applications and scheduling of the judge's consideration.
Compliance with court orders is critical; repeated failure to follow procedural directions justifies denial of applications seeking relief from prior court decisions.
The court established procedural directives on filing replies to interlocutory applications to ensure timely adjudication without affecting final decisions.
The court permits withdrawal of an appeal against an ex-parte order to allow the appellant to pursue proper procedural remedies at the trial court.
The court can advance hearing dates and allow service of documents via multiple means to expedite judicial proceedings.
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The court's decision was primarily based on the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002), specifically regarding the appellate remedy, exclusion of pendency period for ....
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
