Full Text
Translation output
r 'v HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.APP.(C) 9/2013 &CM No. 18683/2013
HSRANA &ORS Appellants
CONT.APP.(C) 9/2013 &CM No. 18683/2013
HSRANA &ORS Appellants
VERSUS
MICROSOFT CORPORATION &ANR Respondents
CONT.APP.(C) 10/2013
MR VISHAL MEHTA Appellant
MR VISHAL MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
MICROSOFT CORPORATION &ANR Respondents
Through: Mr Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate with
Ms Swathi Sukumar, Advocate for appellants Saikrishna Rajagopal and Ms Shilpa
Gupta, Advocates for respondents
Through: Mr Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate with
Ms Swathi Sukumar, Advocate for appellants Saikrishna Rajagopal and Ms Shilpa
Gupta, Advocates for respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHUBAKHRU
«/o 18.12.2013 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are present in person and they have expressed their unconditional apology. Particularly, the owner Mr Vishal Mehta has admitted before us that what happened was a colossal mistake on his part as also ofhis employees (fellow appellants). It is also stated by them that itwas never the intention on their part to disobey the orders ofthe court and that they had made a mistake by asking the Court
Commissioners to wait, whereas, they ought to have given immediate access, to their computer systems, to the Court Commissioners. In view ofthe proviso to Section 12 ofthe Contempt ofCourt Act, 1971
2013:DHC:8559-DB we are discharging the appellants of the contempt and this is so because we feel that the apology tendered by them is unqualified, unconditional and above all bona-fide. Each one of the appellants have expressed remorse at their conduct and have undertaken that in future they shall give due respect to court orders and shall comply with any orders thatmay bepassed which affect them. In view ofthe foregoing, the appeals are allowed, the apologies are accepted and the appellants are discharged ofthe contempt.
We have purposely not made any reference to the merits of the matter because the suit is pending and the parties will obviously test out their rival contentions in the trial which is to ensue.
'A v- BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHUBAKHRU, J DECEMBER 18,2013
SU
2013:DHC:8559-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHUBAKHRU
«/o 18.12.2013 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellants are present in person and they have expressed their unconditional apology. Particularly, the owner Mr Vishal Mehta has admitted before us that what happened was a colossal mistake on his part as also ofhis employees (fellow appellants). It is also stated by them that itwas never the intention on their part to disobey the orders ofthe court and that they had made a mistake by asking the Court
Commissioners to wait, whereas, they ought to have given immediate access, to their computer systems, to the Court Commissioners. In view ofthe proviso to Section 12 ofthe Contempt ofCourt Act, 1971
2013:DHC:8559-DB we are discharging the appellants of the contempt and this is so because we feel that the apology tendered by them is unqualified, unconditional and above all bona-fide. Each one of the appellants have expressed remorse at their conduct and have undertaken that in future they shall give due respect to court orders and shall comply with any orders thatmay bepassed which affect them. In view ofthe foregoing, the appeals are allowed, the apologies are accepted and the appellants are discharged ofthe contempt.
We have purposely not made any reference to the merits of the matter because the suit is pending and the parties will obviously test out their rival contentions in the trial which is to ensue.
'A v- BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHUBAKHRU, J DECEMBER 18,2013
SU
2013:DHC:8559-DB
JUDGMENT