The Court dismissed the consent application, ruling that no notice was required as the appellant's tender of `50,000/- sufficed even if the respondent declined the cost. The application was disposed of on February 29, 2016.
No notice issued; application disposed of based on appellant's tender of `50,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~13
M/S QUEST MARINE SERVICES ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Prakash Gautam, Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advs.
versus
M/S INTER OCEAN SHIPPING INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 29.02.2016 CM 7423/2016
20,000/- to 50,000/- imposed vide order dated July 17, 2014, which merged in the impugned order dated August 12, 2015. Thus for purpose of granting benefit of enlargement of time to the appellant to examine its witnesses, cost payable is only `50,000/-PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 29, 2016 /‘ga’
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order enhancing costs without issuing notice is maintainable.
Whether enlargement of time for examining witnesses can be granted成本的仅凭单方文章。”“,when the extra cost payable is merely a reaffirmation of a previous enhanced order.
M/s Quest Marine Services
M/s Inter Ocean Shipping India Pvt Ltd
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court