Full Text
Translation output
xr HIGH COURT OF DELHI FAO (OS) No.417/2010 PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA Appellant
Through: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Shashi Ojha, Adv.
FAO (OS) No.419/2010 PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA Appellant
Through: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv.
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Shashi Ojha, Adv.
FAO (OS) No.419/2010 PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA Appellant
Through: Mr. Mayank Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
VIVEK MALHOTPvA & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Shashi Ojha, Adv. with Ms. Sudha Tiwari, President.
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sachin Gupta and Ms. Shashi Ojha, Adv. with Ms. Sudha Tiwari, President.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDER^IEET KAUR
21.02.2013 We heard learned counsels for the parties at length.
Learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the President of the appellant, Ms. Sudha Tiwari states that he does not want to press the appeals as the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is only prima facie in nature andmatter has to be decided posttrial, especially, keeping
FAO (OS)No.417/2010 & 419/2010 page ] of 2 2013:DHC:8002-DB
IH in mind that the agreement dated 02.03.1978 has been seriously challenged by the appellant. He further requests that the trial may be expedited as the interim injunction operating is causing prejudice to the appellant.
We are informed that a local commissioner has already been appointed who is recording evidence and the appellant has examined three witnesses whereafter the appellant has moved an application to bring on record additional documents. The evidence of the contesting respondents
No. 8 and 9 is yet to commence and it appears that there are certain witnesses who are sought to be examined on commission for which also an application is pending consideration.
In our view, the parties would expedite these aforesaid aspects for an early conclusion of trial. We would expect the process of recording of evidence to be concluded within the next six months so that the suit can be set down for final hearing.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of in tenns ofthe aforesaid.
SANJAY KISH'AN KAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 21,2013 INDERMEET KAUR, J. rb
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDER^IEET KAUR
21.02.2013 We heard learned counsels for the parties at length.
Learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the President of the appellant, Ms. Sudha Tiwari states that he does not want to press the appeals as the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is only prima facie in nature andmatter has to be decided posttrial, especially, keeping
FAO (OS)No.417/2010 & 419/2010 page ] of 2 2013:DHC:8002-DB
IH in mind that the agreement dated 02.03.1978 has been seriously challenged by the appellant. He further requests that the trial may be expedited as the interim injunction operating is causing prejudice to the appellant.
We are informed that a local commissioner has already been appointed who is recording evidence and the appellant has examined three witnesses whereafter the appellant has moved an application to bring on record additional documents. The evidence of the contesting respondents
No. 8 and 9 is yet to commence and it appears that there are certain witnesses who are sought to be examined on commission for which also an application is pending consideration.
In our view, the parties would expedite these aforesaid aspects for an early conclusion of trial. We would expect the process of recording of evidence to be concluded within the next six months so that the suit can be set down for final hearing.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of in tenns ofthe aforesaid.
SANJAY KISH'AN KAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 21,2013 INDERMEET KAUR, J. rb
FAO (OS) NO.417/2010& 419/2010
2013:DHC:8002-DB
2013:DHC:8002-DB
JUDGMENT