Disposed

Shivraj Gupta v. Deshraj Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2016FAO(OS)/92/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a single Judge's order restricting cross-examination to mesne profits. The court recorded parties' agreement to expand the scope subject to Section 138 of the Evidence Act and directed cross-examination before the Joint Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Cross-examination to be conducted before Joint Registrar subject to Section 138 Indian Evidence Act; appeal disposed.

Shivraj Gupta Vs Deshraj Gupta & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO(OS) 92/2016 SHIVRAJ GUPTA ..... Appellant Through Mr Vikas Dhawan, Adv. with Mr Abhimanyu Mahajan & Mr S. Panda, Advs. versus DESHRAJ GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr Manish Vashisht, Adv. with Mr Amitabh Chaturvedi & Mr Sameer Vashisht, Advs. for R-1. Mr Manish Kumar, Adv. with Mr Piyush Kaushik & Mr Mohit Arora, Advs. for R-2 to R-6. Mr Dheeraj Gupta, Adv. for R-7. Mr P.S. Bindra, Adv. with Ms Rishika Arora, Adv. for R-8.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R

¶5

% 22.08.2016

¶6

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge has directed the cross examination by the defendant no.2 of defendant no.1. However, while doing so, he has also directed that the cross examination would be restricted only to the aspect of mesne profits. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 submitted that although the learned single Judge has allowed cross examination of defendant no.1, the appellant is aggrieved by the fact that it is only a limited cross examination which has been allowed.

¶7

We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the said aspect of the matter. After some discussion, it transpires that the parties are agreeable to the following modalities:

¶8

i. Cross examination of the defendant no.1 by the defendant no.2 would not be limited to the aspect of mesne profits. However, the same would be subject to the limitations prescribed under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to relevancy.

¶9

ii. It is also agreed by the parties that the recording of cross examination would be done before the concerned Joint Registrar.

¶10

iii. The manner of conducting the cross examination of all the defendants shall be the same as indicated above.

¶11

The parties shall appear before the concerned Joint Registrar on 05.09.2016

¶12

for this purpose.

¶13

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶14

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶15

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶16

AUGUST 22, 2016/ab

Shivraj Gupta v. Deshraj Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Gupta v. Deshraj Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Ktl Mayfair Inc. & Anr.

Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Vardhman Properties Ltd.

Vardhman Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Vardhman Properties Ltd.

National Neonatology Forum Vs Dr Shikhar Jain & Ors.

World Book Company (P) Ltd. Vs World Book Inc. & Ors.

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gillete India Ltd.

Gillete India Limited Vs Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Limited

Arun Kumar Sehgal Vs Sudarshan Kumari Sehgal & Ors.

Shri Jagdish Prasad Gupta (Deceased) through His Lr Smt. Prem Lata Gupta & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Raj Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs Prem Kumar Jain & Ors.

Chattarpal (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pankaj Kumar Jha & Ors.

Birjesh Tarun Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Anita Suri Vs Aseem Sethi & Anr.