Full Text
Translation output
A f $-21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 406/2013
INTARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANR Appellants
Through: Mr D.N. Ray and Mr Lokesh Chand, Advocates
FAO(OS) 406/2013
INTARVO TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANR Appellants
Through: Mr D.N. Ray and Mr Lokesh Chand, Advocates
VERSUS
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.09.2013 CM Nos. 14195-96/2013 The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.09.2013 CM Nos. 14195-96/2013 The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 406/2013 & CM No. 14194/2013
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant had not agreed for the order dated 23.07.2013 to be modified so as to incorporate the terms consistent with the order dated 11.01.2012 passed in FAO(OS) No. 23/2012 and reported as 2012 (50) PTC 533
(Del) (DB). He submits that the defendant did not dispute the position that the order dated 09.12.2009 in CS(OS) No. 2027/2009 had been stayed by a Division Bench by an order dated 15.12.2009.
The learned counsel for the appellant also states that he is not denying the fact that the order dated 11.01.2012 was passed in the FAO(OS)
No. 23/2012. However, he contends that he did not consent to the order dated 23.07.2013 being modified by incorporating the terms
2013:DHC:7035-DB '0 i consistent with the order dated 11.01.2012.
However, paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 clearly indicates that:- "The learned counsel for the non-applicant / defendant does not dispute the above position". This would imply that the modification of the order dated 23.07.2013 was also consented to by the learned counsel for the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant no such consent was given.
In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move an application forreview / clarification before the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
SU
2- 2013:DHC:7035-DB
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant had not agreed for the order dated 23.07.2013 to be modified so as to incorporate the terms consistent with the order dated 11.01.2012 passed in FAO(OS) No. 23/2012 and reported as 2012 (50) PTC 533
(Del) (DB). He submits that the defendant did not dispute the position that the order dated 09.12.2009 in CS(OS) No. 2027/2009 had been stayed by a Division Bench by an order dated 15.12.2009.
The learned counsel for the appellant also states that he is not denying the fact that the order dated 11.01.2012 was passed in the FAO(OS)
No. 23/2012. However, he contends that he did not consent to the order dated 23.07.2013 being modified by incorporating the terms
2013:DHC:7035-DB '0 i consistent with the order dated 11.01.2012.
However, paragraph 2 of the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 clearly indicates that:- "The learned counsel for the non-applicant / defendant does not dispute the above position". This would imply that the modification of the order dated 23.07.2013 was also consented to by the learned counsel for the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant no such consent was given.
In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move an application forreview / clarification before the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
SU
2- 2013:DHC:7035-DB
JUDGMENT