Delhi High Court - Orders
Parte Stay) Grand Auto Capital & Ors vs Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd on 9 February, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 20/2021 & CM No.30253/2020 (for ad-interim ex-
parte stay)
GRAND AUTO CAPITAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: None.
Versus
JINDAL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manan Batra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 09.02.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CM No.30254/2020 & CM No.30255/2020 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 20/2021 & CM No.30253/2020 (for ad-interim ex-parte stay)
3. The appeal impugns the order dated 26th October, 2020 of the Commercial Court, of dismissal of an application of the appellants / defendants under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 19th February, 2020 for ejectment of the appellant from immovable property and for recovery from the appellant, of arrears of rent and damages.
4. It was the case of the appellants / defendants that they learnt of the ex parte decree only on receiving notice of the execution petition.
5. Notice of this appeal was ordered to be issued. However it is found that none appeared for the appellants / defendants on 27th January, 2021 and FAO(COMM) No.20/2021 Page 1 of 2 on 1st February, 2021 intimation was received that the counsels were not willing for physical hearing; it is not very clear whether the intimation was by the counsel for the appellants / defendants or by the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
6. Today, none has appeared for the appellants / defendants. On our request, the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff made a call to Mr. Firoz Khan, Advocate for the appellants / defendants and informs that the call was disconnected.
7. The Commercial Court has dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, observing that the appellants / defendants were not resisting delivery of possession and had not been able to justify non- payment of rent decreed and the mesne profits decreed were only marginally above the rent.
8. It is not the case of the appellants / defendants that any of the aforesaid reasonings of the Commercial Court are erroneous.
9. Be that as it may, dismissed in default.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 9, 2021 'gsr'..
FAO(COMM) No.20/2021 Page 2 of 2