Full Text
Translation output
'~· HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 1007/2009
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Ms. Safia Said, Advocate.
CS(OS) 1007/2009
MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Ms. Safia Said, Advocate.
VERSUS
MR. GOPINATARANJAN &ANR ..... Defendents
Through : Mr. N.L. Ganapathi, Advocate, for Defendant
No.2 with Mr. Purushottama Reddy, Authorised Representative ofDefendant No.2.
Through : Mr. N.L. Ganapathi, Advocate, for Defendant
No.2 with Mr. Purushottama Reddy, Authorised Representative ofDefendant No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICES. RAVINDRA BHAT
11.08.2009 I.A. No. 10052/2009 (Under Order 23 Rule 3) in CS(OS) 1007/2009
By a joint application Under Order 23 Rule 3, the parties request the Court to record a settlement and impede a consent decree. The terms of the compromise are contained in paras 2(a) to 2G); the application is supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs'
Constituted Attorney and Financial Controller of second defendant, who was duly authorized for this purpose by the Board Resolution of 11.07.2009. It is stated by defendants' counsel that the said deponent, Mr. Purushottama Reddy is also present in
Court.
For the reasons mentioned in the joint application and having considered the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that interest·ofjustice would be sub-served if the claim is acceded to; I.A. No. 10052/2009 is accordingly allowed.
CS(OS) 1007/2009
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the claim as against Defendant
2009:DHC:9701 I ,.., -~.
_, No. I would not be pressed; it is accordingly deemed abandoned and the suit is dismissed against the said defendants.
In view of the order made in I.A. No. 10052/2009, the suit is decreed in terms of paras 2(a) to 2G) of the application; let a decree be drawn, subject to the plaintiffs depositing differential Court Fees. No costs.
AUGUST
'ajk' 11,2009 ~ S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J ii 2009:DHC:9701
11.08.2009 I.A. No. 10052/2009 (Under Order 23 Rule 3) in CS(OS) 1007/2009
By a joint application Under Order 23 Rule 3, the parties request the Court to record a settlement and impede a consent decree. The terms of the compromise are contained in paras 2(a) to 2G); the application is supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs'
Constituted Attorney and Financial Controller of second defendant, who was duly authorized for this purpose by the Board Resolution of 11.07.2009. It is stated by defendants' counsel that the said deponent, Mr. Purushottama Reddy is also present in
Court.
For the reasons mentioned in the joint application and having considered the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that interest·ofjustice would be sub-served if the claim is acceded to; I.A. No. 10052/2009 is accordingly allowed.
CS(OS) 1007/2009
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the claim as against Defendant
2009:DHC:9701 I ,.., -~.
_, No. I would not be pressed; it is accordingly deemed abandoned and the suit is dismissed against the said defendants.
In view of the order made in I.A. No. 10052/2009, the suit is decreed in terms of paras 2(a) to 2G) of the application; let a decree be drawn, subject to the plaintiffs depositing differential Court Fees. No costs.
AUGUST
'ajk' 11,2009 ~ S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J ii 2009:DHC:9701
JUDGMENT