Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SILVERTON PAPER LTD. versus PRADEEP TYAGI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Silverton Paper Ltd. v. Pradeep Tyagi & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 337 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14481 (27 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

       A suit for recovery of money was filed by respondent no.1 Pradeep Tyagi against Silverton Paper Ltd. It appears that a written statement was filed by Deepak Goel and Mayank Goel on behalf of the company and on their own behalf as well. An application for amending the written statement had earlier been filed by Deepak Goel and Mayank Goel clarifying that the written statement was on their behalf and not on behalf of the company because they were not the directors of the company at the relevant time. The amendment application was dismissed by the trial court but was allowed by this court in Civil Revision No. 306 of 2007 by order dated 6.8.2007. The trial court by the same order dated 22.5.2007 also rejected the prayer made by the present director Prasun Agarwal to file a written statement on behalf of the company. This order has been challenged in the present revision. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that in view of the amendment for treating the written statement to have been filed only on behalf of the Director having been allowed there is no written statement on behalf of the company at all and the applicant may be permitted to file the written statement.

     Sri Nipun Singh has appeared on behalf of Pradeep Tyagi, respondent no.1. He concedes that in the facts and circumstances one opportunity may be granted to the applicant to file a written statement but the applicant may not delay the proceedings, which they have been doing. Counsel for the applicant states that the written statement will be filed within a period of one month from today.

    In the facts and circumstances and in view of the concession made by the counsel for the respondent no.1 the revision is allowed. The order dated 22.5.2007 impugned is set aside. The applicant is granted one month time to file the written statement. It  is stated by the counsel for the parties that in the earlier writ petition there is already a direction for deciding the suit within a time bound period. It is expected that the trial court shall abide by that order.

23.8.2007.

s.CR.337/07.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.