Disposed

Dinesh Tayal & Anr. v. Jogender Chadha

Delhi HC4 Sept 2018RFA/407/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This consent order disposed of the appeal by framing specific issues regarding the existence of the appellant's signature on a Bayana Receipt dated 1.12.2008, mandating handwriting expert comparison with bank account signatures, allocating Rs. 35,000 costs to the appellant, and listing the parties before the District and Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Disposal via consent order; three opportunities to prove signature existence; Rs. 35,000 costs to respondent; matter listed for disposal by District and Sessions Judge.

Dinesh Tayal & Anr. Vs Jogender Chadha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

RFA 407/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 15238/2017 (for stay)

¶4

DINESH TAYAL & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate (Mobile No. 9810029802).

¶5

versus JOGENDER CHADHA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Sonakshi Monga, Advocate (Mobile No.7838204559).

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

¶7

O R D E R % 04.09.2018

¶8

RFA 407/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 15238/2017 (for stay)

¶9

After arguments, this appeal is disposed of with the consent order by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2012 and entitling the appellants/defendants exactly three opportunities to complete their examination-in-chief limited to the aspect as to whether or not on the Bayana Receipt dated 1.12.2008 signatures of the appellant no.1 exists or does not exist.

¶10

Appellant-Sh. Dinesh Tayal will necessarily have to file in order to prove the signatures on the Bayana Receipt dated 1.12.2008 being not of the appellant- Sh. Dinesh Tayal by filing before the trial court the admitted signatures of the appellant-Sh. Dinesh Tayal in or around the relevant period on 1.12.2008 as existing in the bank accounts of the appellant/defendant-Sh. Dinesh Tayal as also other

¶11

admitted signatures appearing at least at one place in the public record such as Passport or Aadhar Card.

¶12

Handwriting expert’s report prepared at the instance of the appellant/defendant will be by comparison of the disputed signatures on the Bayana Receipt dated 1.12.2008 with the admitted signatures of the appellant/defendant as appearing in the bank accounts of the appellant/defendant as also other public record being the Aadhar Card.

¶13

Respondent/plaintiff will have opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal that the signatures appearing on the Bayana Receipt dated 1.12.2008 are in fact the signatures of the appellant/defendant, and which is the case of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶14

Appellants will pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as costs to the respondent/plaintiff on the first date which will be fixed before the concerned trial court in terms of the order of the concerned District and Sessions Judge.

¶15

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid consent order and parties will appear before the District and Sessions Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 4^th October, 2018, and the District and Sessions Judge will mark the suit for disposal to a competent court in accordance with law and the observations made in the present order.

¶16

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶18

SEPTEMBER 04, 2018/ AK

Dinesh Tayal & Anr. v. Jogender Chadha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Tayal & Anr. v. Jogender Chadha

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

Rajiv Thampi Vs Aditi Gupa & Ors.

Ram Chand Thakur & Ors. Vs Digambar Thakur

Srishti Khanna Vs Sunita Khanna

Rajnish Kohli Vs Hcl Technoliges Ltd.

Ashwani Kumar Vs Kalimuddin

Jagdish Singh Lochab (Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Pushpa Saroha