Sahayata & Sahayata

 The file is a judgment from the Supreme Court of India in the case of Urmila Pasari Versus Exide India Limited . Here are the key details from the document, focusing on paragraphs 7, 8, and 9: Case Details Case Title: Urmila Pasari Versus Exide India Limited Court: Supreme Court of India Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha, JJ. Decided On: February 4, 2020 Relevant Acts/Rules: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), specifically Order I Rule 10(2) and Order XXII Rule 10 . Background The case arose from an old Title Suit for ejectment and mesne profits filed in 1982. The original plaintiff and the proforma defendant (defendant no. 2), Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari, both passed away during the suit's pendency. Smt. Sabitri Devi Pasari (defendant no. 2 and the real beneficiary) willed the suit property to the appellants (Urmila Pasari and others). A registered deed of assignment was executed in favor of the appellants. The appellants filed an application under Order I Rul...

The Hon'ble  Gujarat High Court in the case of Fatesinhrao Pratap Sinhrao Gaekwad Versus Savjibhai Haribhai Patel . Here are the key details about the case and the judgment: Case Title: Fatesinhrao Pratap Sinhrao Gaekwad Versus Savjibhai Haribhai Patel Case Type: Civil Revision Application No. 2010 of 1982 Decided On: March 30, 1984 Hon'ble Judge: R.A. Mehta, J. Key Issue and Decision The main question addressed in the judgment was whether the trial court was justified in allowing the plaintiff's application to join additional defendants under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) . Additional Defendants: The plaintiff sought to join the specified authority , competent authority , and the State Government —all under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 . Trial Court Decision: The trial court allowed the addition of these parties . High Court Decision: The High Court dismissed the Revision Application filed by the original d...

Title: Neeraj Kainth v. M/S Campuseai India Pvt Ltd & Ors. Court: High Court of Delhi Decision Date: December 20, 2024 Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora Executive Summary The Delhi High Court recently clarified the boundaries of impleading company directors in civil suits . The Court ruled that directors cannot be made personal parties to a lawsuit unless there is a specific cause of action, a personal guarantee, or a clear case for "lifting the corporate veil" . 1. Background: The Dispute The plaintiff, a former CEO, filed a suit for: Unpaid salary and travel reimbursements against Defendants 1 and 2 (the companies) . Share allotments against Defendants 3 and 4 (sister concerns) . Personal Impleadment: The plaintiff also sued Defendants 5 and 6 in their personal capacity, alleging they were the "chief controllers" and decision-makers of the corporate entities . 2. The Legal Tug-of-War The Directors' Defense: Defendants 5 and 6 ...

  Case Brief: Namita Gupta vs. Suraj Holdings Limited Title: Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Limited , CM(M) 457/2023 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Decided On: January 9, 2024 Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla Facts of the Case Original Suit: The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,07,37,545.07 against the petitioner (defendant) in August 2019 . Procedural History: Initially treated as an ordinary civil suit, the petitioner filed a written statement and a counter-claim . In February 2022, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC , arguing the dispute was commercial and barred for non-compliance with Pre-Institution Mediation (Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act) . Lower Court Orders: The Additional District Judge (ADJ) observed the dispute was commercial and sent the file to the Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDSJ) for transfer . The PDSJ subsequently transferred the suit to the Commercial Court...