Disposed

Union of India & Ors. v. Jagat Singh

Delhi HC15 Feb 2016FAO(OS)/453/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi condoned a 145-day delay. The Court noted that the Single Judge inadvertently settled standard issues instead of pleas on maintainability raised in an interim application. The appeal disposed of by settling a new specific issue on estoppel.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 145 days condoned. Issue No.1A settled regarding estoppel. Other applications dismissed as infructuous.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jagat Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 453/2015

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Suparna Srivastava, Ms.Manu Dev Sharma, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

JAGAT SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.E.Dathaya, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 15.02.2016

¶9

CM 15071/2015

¶10

For the reasons stated in the application 145 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO(OS) 453/2015

¶11

On February 10, 2015 IA No.25586/2014 filed by the appellant seeking rejection of the plaint was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing an order as under:-

¶12

“Learned counsel for the defendant stated that the averments made in the application may be considered at the time of framing of issues. With these directions application disposed of.”

¶13

Immediately thereafter issues were settled. They were only two in number. They read as under:-

¶14

“i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ` 1,05,08,500/and if so at what rate of interest? (OPP)

¶15

ii. Relief.”

¶16

FAO(OS) 453/2015 page 1 of 2

¶17

We are a little surprised for the reason on the same day disposing of IA No.25586/2014 the learned Single Judge has recorded that the issue of maintainability of the suit would be considered at the time of settlement of issues. Disposing of IA No.25586/2014 the learned Single Judge proceeded to settle the issue but did not settle the issue concerning the pleas taken in IA No.25586/2014.

¶18

These pleas we find have also been taken in the written statement.

¶19

The appeal is disposed of settling the following issue as issue No.1A:- “Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the suit amount in view of the orders dated July 13, 2012 and April 12, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.3252/2012? (OPD)”

¶20

No cost.

¶21

Dasti.

¶22

CMs 15070/2015 & 29999/2015 (stay)

¶23

Applications are dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶25

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶26

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 ‘ga’

¶27

page 2 of 2

¶28

FAO(OS) 453/2015

Union of India & Ors. v. Jagat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Jagat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Capital Builders and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs Uma Shankar Sharma & Ors.

Sagar Apartment Residents Association Sagar Apartments Vs Sequoia Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Manoj Kumar

Harish Virmani & Anr. Vs Ashok Virmani & Ors.

M/S Hi Tek Engineers & Ors. Vs Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Counsel (Tifac)

Smt Kamal Sethi Vs Sh S K Sethi

M/S Home Stores (India) Ltd. Vs M/S Pacific Maintenance Services Pvt. Ltd.

Samiuddin Vs State of Delhi

Rajesh Vs State

Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Capital Builders and Ors.

M/S Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs M/S Kwick Travels Private Limited and Ors.

Sardar Nanak Singh and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.

M/S Badri Vinimay Private Limited Vs Mmtc Limited