Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Fornax Real Estate Ltd. v. M/s Chandigarh Spun Pipe Co.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
FAO No.404 of 2009 (O&M)
Fornax Real Estate Ltd.
v.
M/s Chandigarh Spun Pipe Co. & Ors.
{Decided on 30/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jhanjhi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
Arbitration Law--Arbitration Proceedings--Interim Relief--Agreement to sell--Disputes between parties with respect to agreement to sell of property--Interpretation of its clauses referred to Arbitration--Whether breach of contract is committed by purchaser or seller yet to be decided by Arbitrator--In order to secure amount of Rs.17.50 crores paid as part payment it would be just and expedient to direct seller not to alienate property in dispute till matter is decided by Arbitrator--Further amount of Rs.4,93,21,000/- paid by purchaser towards conversion fee of Land use to be deposited in a Bank by FDR securing highest rate of interest to be paid to party held entitled in term of arbitral award--Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9. (Paras 10 & 11)
---------------
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Barr Labts., Inc. Ranbaxy Labotatories Ltd.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Civil Original Petition No.2 of 2008
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Ors.
v.
Barr Laboratories, Inc. Ranbaxy Labotatories Ltd. & Ors.
{Decided on 01/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Chhiber, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Appointment of commission--Letter of request issued by foreign Court--To obtain evidence in civil dispute of witness M/S Ind.-Swift laboratories Ltd. by examining technically qualified representative of M/s Ind. Swift Laboratiories Ltd. by Commission and also persure and obtain photocopies of documents mentioned in letter of request--Head of Department of Chemistry, Stephen College, Delhi being highly qualified appointed as commission--Commission directed to return evidence so collected in sealed cover to Registrar of High Court within four weeks who shall forward it to Central Government along with letter of request for transmission to foreign Court--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 78, Order 26, Rule 19 and 20(a).
--------------
Pawan Kumar v. Surinder Pal & Anr.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 1620 of 2009
Pawan Kumar
v.
Surinder Pal & Anr.
{Decided on 17/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure--Rebuttal Evidence--If during the course of leading evidence on the issues, the onus whereof was on the plaintiff, any statement was made with regard to issues the onus of which is on the defendants, the same shall not mean that plaintiff had infact led or concluded his evidence on those issues as it is only after the defendant has led his evidence that plaintiff will come to know the same and get an opportunity to rebut the same. Plaintiff cannot presuppose the evidence which is to be led by the defendant on the issues, the onus whereof is on him--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 18, Rule 3. (Para 8 and 9)
(B) Civil Procedure--Rebuttal Evidence--Agreement to sell--Plea of same being false and fabricated--Burden on defendant to prove--Prayer for examining expert witness in rebuttal rejected--Held; Plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in the form of expert witness on the issue, the onus of which was on the respondents-defendants. -- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 18, Rule 3. (Para 3 and 10)
----------------