Delhi High Court - Orders
Saptagiri Restaurant Pvt. Ltd vs Sh Pardeep Kumar & Ors on 3 April, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 341/2021 & I.A. Nos. 9164/2021, 9166/2021
SAPTAGIRI RESTAURANT PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate.
versus
SH PARDEEP KUMAR & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Arjun and Mr. Akash Arora, Advocates for D-1.
Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates alongwith Ms. Monali
Deshraj, Managar (Law), AAI for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
% 03.04.2024
1. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.3 from handing over the Bank Guarantees as detailed in Prayer 1 to defendant no.1? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Mandatory injunction directing defendant no.3 to deliver/hand over the Bank Guarantees submitted by defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 in terms of the License Agreements to the plaintiff ? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Permanent injunction against defendant no.1 restraining defendant no.1 from seeking to encash the amounts lying as security in the form of FDR's or otherwise for securing the Bank Guarantees submitted by defendant no.1 to the defendant no.3 in terms of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/04/2024 at 21:26:09 the License Agreements to the plaintiff ? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.1 to hand over to the plaintiff the original Bank Guarantees if any released to him by defendant no.3? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant nos. 4 and 5 from remitting any amounts to the account of defendant no.1 from the FDR's or any other security in respect of Bank Guarantees submitted by defendant no.1 to defendant no.3? OPP
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant no.4 and 5 to remit the monies lying in the FDR's and other securities as security for the Bank Guarantees to the plaintiff? OPP.
(vii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff does not comply with the provisions of Order XI Rule 3 CPC, 1908 or Commercial Act, 2015, and its effect? OPD1.
(viii) Whether the suit has been valued incorrectly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD1.
(ix) Whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forted or fabricated ? OPD1
(x) Whether there can be no transfer of a sole proprietorship concern ? OPD1
(xi) Whether an injunction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.3 to deliver/hand over the bank guarantees submitted by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff "
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/04/2024 at 21:26:09 OPP.
2. No other issues arises or are pressed for.
3. Both parties are directed to file the list of witnesses along with evidence by way of an affidavit within 15 days with an advance copy supplied to the opposite party.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a Local Commissioner may be appointed at his own expense.
5. In these circumstances, Sh.B. B. Chaudhary, Former District Judge, Mobile No. 9910384611 is appointed as a Local Commissioner with the following directions:
a) Any technical objections raised by any of the parties should be noted in the proceeding sheet, and these should not serve as grounds for adjourning the proceedings.
b) The Local Commissioner may prepare a proceeding sheet for every hearing. This sheet, along with the evidence recorded on that day, should simultaneously be provided to the concerned parties as well as the official of this Court who brought the file to the Local Commissioner.
c) If any documents are filed during the course of the examination-in-
chief and/or cross-examination, they should be duly exhibited and attached to the day's proceedings by the Local Commissioner under his signatures. A short description of the said documents filed should be mentioned in the day's proceedings by the Local Commissioner. The said documents shall also be handed over to the official of this Court who brought the file to the Local Commissioner.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/04/2024 at 21:26:10
d) Any additional documents submitted with the affidavit in evidence ought to be taken on record with the leave of the Court. However, leave has to be sought in accordance with the judgment of the Ld. Division Bench in Exide Industries Ltd. v. Exide Corporation USA; 2014 (58) PTC 200 (Del). In respect of adjourning the matter, documents ought to be exhibited, subject to orders passed by the Court.
e) If any objections are raised relating to any documents, the same ought to be recorded and cross-examination would, however, proceed.
f) In the case of an outstation witness, repeated appearances should be avoided. The Local Commissioner should schedule dates in such a way as to ensure, to the extent possible, that evidence of the said witness is concluded on the same day.
g) In the case of a foreign witness, if the witness is physically present, his/her evidence should be recorded in a way that inconvenience is not caused.
h) If it is feasible to record evidence via virtual mode in accordance with the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, then the same shall be recorded as such.
i) The Local Commissioner shall ordinarily not adjourn the recording of evidence for a period beyond one week. Upon receipt of a request for a longer adjournment, the matter shall be forthwith placed before the Court for appropriate orders. See Rule 8(ii) of Chapter XII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
6. The Local Commissioner is requested to conclude evidence within the time stipulated by the Court and/or in any case within six (6) months' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/04/2024 at 21:26:11 time-limit (from the first date fixed before him). According to Rule 8(ix) of Chapter XII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, if any extension is to be sought, the Local Commissioner is required to furnish a report explaining the reasons for the delay and direct parties to seek appropriate orders from the Court.
7. The fee of the Local Commissioner for any functional day for a duration of two hours would be Rs.15,000/- per day. In case, the parties seek adjournment or evidence is not recorded, for any of the reasons, the fee of the Local Commissioner would be Rs.7500/-per day.
8. The defendant shall bear the fees of the local commissioner and shall also arrange the venue of the recording of the evidence and other secretarial assistance.
9. Parties are directed to file a list of witnesses along with evidence by way of an affidavit within 15 days with an advance copy supplied to each other.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Local Commissioner on 15.04.2024.
11. List the matter before the Court on 19.07.2024.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 03, 2024/ssc This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/04/2024 at 21:26:12