TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] In case-1 , Scheme of amalgamation approved by the NCLT. Thereafter, application was made to Divisional commissioner, Revenue Department, GNCTD seeking adjudication of stamp duty but till date stamp duty payable has not been adjudicated. Hence, writ petition filed seeking directions to the commissioner for adjudication of stamp duty. In case-2 , company has converted debentures into shares. It seeks issuance of stamp paper for share certificate. But despite requests, the commissioner till date has not issued any challan for purchase of stamp paper. Because of this, company is unable to comply section 56(4) of the companies act, 2013. i.e. delivery of share certificate within prescribed time.   Because in both case-1 & case-2 , the scheme of stamp duty & debenture conversion deed, there is no pre-determined stamp duty, therefore application was filed under section 31 of Indian stamp act, 1899 for adjudication of proper stamp duty...

  Who has control over the ‘services’ in the National capital territory of Delhi or the LG on behalf of the Govt? whether NCTD has the power to legislate under Entry 41 of the State List, and Meaning of the term “ in so far as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories ” in Article 239AA(3)(a).   Facts: 2015 Notification says LG can exercise control: (i)                  “ to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President ” over “services” in addition to “ public order”, “police”, and “land .”   (ii)                 The Lieutenant Governor may seek the views of the Chief Minister of NCTD at his “discretion ”.   (iii)               The “ Services” are covered under Entry 41 of the State List of the Se...

    Mr. A booked a consignment with carrier. The carrier filed a suit against Mr. A for recovery of money. Mr. A filed a counter-claim for compensation on account of loss of business opportunity, loss of reputation and idle men & machine. The carrier filed Order 7 Rule 11(d) contending that counter-claim/ plaint is barred by section 16 of Carriage by Road act, 2007 which bars any suit or legal proceedings against carrier for loss or damage to the consignment unless prior notice been served before institution of suit or legal proceedings. The trial court allowed the Order 7 Rule 11 and rejected the counter claim. The Hon’ble High Court affirm the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that [1] :   (I)              Section 16 is applicable only in respect of institution of a suit or legal proceeding against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, the consignment. The use of the word “Consignment” ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed an infringement suit against B. The issues were framed by the court and local commissioner was appointed. The evidence affidavit field by parties but evidence yet to be recorded. A, plaintiff filed application under O24 R1 CPC seeking an additional issue to be framed on rendition of accounts. B opposed the same on ground that there is no question of rendition of accounts because dispute is as per terms of license agreement which does not contain any such condition of statement of account. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the court while framing an issue need not go into the fact that whether any of the parties would be ultimately able to prove the aforesaid issue or not. An application for framing additional issues cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay, if otherwise, the Court is of the view that additional issues are required to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2]   (I)     ...

      Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a commercial suit against B. B, in response filed the written statement and A filed the replication. The issues were framed and evidence affidavit was field. A, filed application under O XI CPC to place on record additional documents on the ground that they are in response to counter the B’s defence. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while rejecting the application held that: [2]   (i)              In a commercial suit, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit on the ground that the same are in response to the case set up by the defendant in the written statement. Permitting a party to file additional documents at any stage would make a complete mockery of Order XI of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits.   (ii)            The whole object of the afore...