Full Text
Translation output
# $-6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 296/2013 & CM No. 9587/2013
M/S AUTO NEEDS (I)PVT. LTD. Appellant
Through: Mr Sanat Kumar, Advocate
FAO(OS) 296/2013 & CM No. 9587/2013
M/S AUTO NEEDS (I)PVT. LTD. Appellant
Through: Mr Sanat Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
VED VRAT SHARMA Respondent
Through: Mr Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
Through: Mr Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.11.2013 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by a learned Single
Judge of this court in I.A No. 11504/2009 which was filed under
Order XV-A CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant / defendant to deposit, in court, the license fee / rent calculated @ Rs
1.5 lakhs per month from 01.09.2008 till September 2009. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the said deposit would be without prejudice to the appellant's / defendant's contention made in the written statement as well as in the amendment applicantion being
I.A. No. 5959/2013 that it is not liable to make any payment to the respondent / plaintiff in view of the counter claim against the said respondent / plaintiff. The deposit was required to be made in the name of the Registrar General within four weeks and the same was
2013:DHC:7047-DB required to be kept in the form of FixedDeposit initially for a period of six months.
The said direction for depositing the said amount was made on the basis of the appellant / defendant being admittedly in possession of the suit premises during the period 01.09.2008 to September 2009.
It was also made on the premise that the effective rate of license fee / rent with effect from 01.07.2007 was Rs 1.5 lakhsper month.
We also note that the said application (LA No. 11504/2009) has not actually been disposed of and the direction to make the deposit was only an ad-interim measure.
In these circumstances, we do not feel that there is any interference called for insofar as the impugned order is concerned. It is obvious that once the deposit is made, the period for which we extend upto another six weeks from today, the court shall examine the application and decide as to whether the respondent / plaintiff is entitled to disbursement ofthe deposited amount or not.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 11,2013
SU
2013:DHC:7047-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.11.2013 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by a learned Single
Judge of this court in I.A No. 11504/2009 which was filed under
Order XV-A CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant / defendant to deposit, in court, the license fee / rent calculated @ Rs
1.5 lakhs per month from 01.09.2008 till September 2009. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the said deposit would be without prejudice to the appellant's / defendant's contention made in the written statement as well as in the amendment applicantion being
I.A. No. 5959/2013 that it is not liable to make any payment to the respondent / plaintiff in view of the counter claim against the said respondent / plaintiff. The deposit was required to be made in the name of the Registrar General within four weeks and the same was
2013:DHC:7047-DB required to be kept in the form of FixedDeposit initially for a period of six months.
The said direction for depositing the said amount was made on the basis of the appellant / defendant being admittedly in possession of the suit premises during the period 01.09.2008 to September 2009.
It was also made on the premise that the effective rate of license fee / rent with effect from 01.07.2007 was Rs 1.5 lakhsper month.
We also note that the said application (LA No. 11504/2009) has not actually been disposed of and the direction to make the deposit was only an ad-interim measure.
In these circumstances, we do not feel that there is any interference called for insofar as the impugned order is concerned. It is obvious that once the deposit is made, the period for which we extend upto another six weeks from today, the court shall examine the application and decide as to whether the respondent / plaintiff is entitled to disbursement ofthe deposited amount or not.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 11,2013
SU
2013:DHC:7047-DB
JUDGMENT