Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary vs Indian Plumbing Association

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary – Appellant
Versus
Indian Plumbing Association – Respondent

Table of Content
1. application for return of plaint (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on suit valuation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. jurisdiction based on suit valuation (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. evaluation of suit valuation standards (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. importance of proper valuation determination (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. criteria for determining court fee (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. no malafide in suit valuation (Para 26)
8. final order on application dismissal (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 4632/2021

1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the defendant for return of the plaint on the ground of suit valuation.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration for declaring the Resolution no. 4 passed in the National Executive Committee (NEC) Special Meeting no. IPA/NEC Spl. Mtg./02 held on 11.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and also for injunction for restraining the defendant Company from giving it effect and operation.

3. The defendant Association has filed a Written State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTNEENA BANSAL KRISHNASandip Kumar Roy Choudary – AppellantVersusIndian Plumbing Association – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Sandip Kumar Roy Choudary – Appellant
Versus
Indian Plumbing Association – Respondent