Full Text
Translation output
(In)
$-64 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 947/2013
LAKHANI INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Nishant Datta, Adv. with Ms.Ruchita Datta & Ms.Garima
Hooda, Advs.
$-64 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) 947/2013
LAKHANI INDIA LTD Petitioner
Through Mr.Nishant Datta, Adv. with Ms.Ruchita Datta & Ms.Garima
Hooda, Advs.
VERSUS
BEST LABEL CO PVT LTD Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
11.09.2013 C.M. No.14279/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CM(M) No.947/2013 The petitioner assailed the order dated
1St May, 2013 whereby the petitioner (defendant in the suit) was directed to file an affidavit regarding liability, if any, which is due towards the respondent/plaintiff irrespective of quality of the goods supplied by the respondent.
The fact of the matter is that the respondent filed a suit under Order
XXXVII CPC for recovery of 15,21,033/- with future and pendentelite interest against the petitioner. An application for leave to defend is filed by. the petitioner which is still pending. Reply to the application for leave to defend has been filed by the respondent.
2013:DHC:7439 The impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in its application for leave to defend. I do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court could not have passed the impugned order for the purpose of the discovery of the details which are required for the purpose of deciding the application for leave to defend. The, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.M. No.14278/2013 (for stay)
Since the main petition has already been dismissed, the present application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.
'V
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 2013:DHC:7439
11.09.2013 C.M. No.14279/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CM(M) No.947/2013 The petitioner assailed the order dated
1St May, 2013 whereby the petitioner (defendant in the suit) was directed to file an affidavit regarding liability, if any, which is due towards the respondent/plaintiff irrespective of quality of the goods supplied by the respondent.
The fact of the matter is that the respondent filed a suit under Order
XXXVII CPC for recovery of 15,21,033/- with future and pendentelite interest against the petitioner. An application for leave to defend is filed by. the petitioner which is still pending. Reply to the application for leave to defend has been filed by the respondent.
2013:DHC:7439 The impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in its application for leave to defend. I do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court could not have passed the impugned order for the purpose of the discovery of the details which are required for the purpose of deciding the application for leave to defend. The, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.M. No.14278/2013 (for stay)
Since the main petition has already been dismissed, the present application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.
'V
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 2013:DHC:7439
JUDGMENT