- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 8 November 2016
- Bench
- Vibhu Bakhru
- Case no.
- ARB.P. 331/2016
Judgment
O R D E R %
08.11.2016 The learned counsel for the respondent states that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. He also drawn the attention of this Court to an affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated
05.10.2015 which unequivocally indicates that Subhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Subhkamna (Advert) Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. are two separate companies. Indisputably, the agreement entered into by the petitioner is with Subhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 197-E, Pocket-IV, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I. In the circumstances, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh arraying Subhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. as a respondent. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 08, 2016 RK
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 331/2016 SAVITRI VATS & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms Richa Relhan, Ms Praneeta Sharma, Advocates. Versus SUBHKAMNA (ADVERTS) BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr Karan Sachdeva, Mr Varun Singh and Mr Prashant Chaudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.