Full Text
Translation output
$-2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI RFA(0S)(C0]V1M)8/2018&CM APPL.40268/2019
ZENNERINTERNATIONALGMBH&CO&ANR Appellants
Through: Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan,Mr.Saurabh Seth,Ms.Sameera Seth and Ms.Anubha
Goel,Advts.
ZENNERINTERNATIONALGMBH&CO&ANR Appellants
Through: Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan,Mr.Saurabh Seth,Ms.Sameera Seth and Ms.Anubha
Goel,Advts.
VERSUS
ANANDZENNERCOPVTLTD. Respondent
Through: Mr.SuhailDutt,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Sujoy . Kumar,Mr.Azhar Alam,Mr.Sankalp
Through: Mr.SuhailDutt,Sr.Adv.with Mr.Sujoy . Kumar,Mr.Azhar Alam,Mr.Sankalp
CORAM- Goswamiand Mr.Raghav Kumar,Advts.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUPJAIRAM BHAMBHANI
"/o 06.11.2019 This is an appeal againstjudgment dated 23.01.2018 passed by alearned
Single Judgeofthis Court,by whichthecommercialsuitfiled bythe appellants hasbeendismissedsincedespitebeinggrantedrepeatedopportunities,plaintiffs' evidence was notfiled.
Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan,learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the learned Single Judge has observed that four opportunities were granted,howeverthe SingleJudgehasfailedtotakeinto accountthefactthat,as therecordshowsafterissueswereframedon23.02.2017andanopportunitywas granted -to file affidavit by way of evidence, issues were amended on
08.05.2017;andthereafterthree opportunities weregranted.
Mr.Mahajan submits that the affidavit by way ofevidence could not be filed for the reason firstly, that there was a split between the father and son advocates who were running the law firm representing the appellants; and secondly,thatthe authorisedrepresentative ofthecompany waschanged andthe affidavithadtobesigned bytheperson appointed subsequently.
Mr.Mahajan hasalsocontendedthatthesuitis otherwisestrongon merits.
2019:DHC:7951-DB Mr.Suhail Dutt, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. submitsthatthereisnoinfirmityintheorderpassedbythelearnedSingleJudge that would require interference.
Wehave heard learned counselsforthepartiesand have considered their rival contentions.
Inthis case,issues wereframedon 23.02.2017;thereafteranopportunity wasgrantedtotheappellantsto fileaffidavitevidence. Subsequently however, issues framed were amended on 08.05.2017; after which,three opportunities were granted; butno evidence was filed.
On accountofthe peculiarcircumstances which have been explained by
Mr.Mahajan, more particularly the split in the law firm representing the appellants;and in the Interests ofjustice,we set-aside thejudgmentpassed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the suit subject to payment of costs of
Rs.5.00,000/-(RupeesFiveLakhs).Outofthesaid amount,Rs.l lakh would be paid to the respondents; Rs.2 lakhs would be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society; and Rs.2 lakhs would be deposited withtheDelhiHigh CourtMediationand ConciliationCentre.
Weareinformedthatthe affidavitofevidencehasnow beenpreparedand stands filed in the present appeal. A copy ofsame has been supplied to the counsel for the respondent. We direct that an additional original copy ofthe sameaffidavitevidencebepreparedandfiled inthesuitwithintendays.
List the matter before the Joint Registrar for marking exhibits on
25.11.2019.
With the above directions, the appeal and pending application, being
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUPJAIRAM BHAMBHANI
"/o 06.11.2019 This is an appeal againstjudgment dated 23.01.2018 passed by alearned
Single Judgeofthis Court,by whichthecommercialsuitfiled bythe appellants hasbeendismissedsincedespitebeinggrantedrepeatedopportunities,plaintiffs' evidence was notfiled.
Mr.Abhimanyu Mahajan,learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the learned Single Judge has observed that four opportunities were granted,howeverthe SingleJudgehasfailedtotakeinto accountthefactthat,as therecordshowsafterissueswereframedon23.02.2017andanopportunitywas granted -to file affidavit by way of evidence, issues were amended on
08.05.2017;andthereafterthree opportunities weregranted.
Mr.Mahajan submits that the affidavit by way ofevidence could not be filed for the reason firstly, that there was a split between the father and son advocates who were running the law firm representing the appellants; and secondly,thatthe authorisedrepresentative ofthecompany waschanged andthe affidavithadtobesigned bytheperson appointed subsequently.
Mr.Mahajan hasalsocontendedthatthesuitis otherwisestrongon merits.
2019:DHC:7951-DB Mr.Suhail Dutt, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. submitsthatthereisnoinfirmityintheorderpassedbythelearnedSingleJudge that would require interference.
Wehave heard learned counselsforthepartiesand have considered their rival contentions.
Inthis case,issues wereframedon 23.02.2017;thereafteranopportunity wasgrantedtotheappellantsto fileaffidavitevidence. Subsequently however, issues framed were amended on 08.05.2017; after which,three opportunities were granted; butno evidence was filed.
On accountofthe peculiarcircumstances which have been explained by
Mr.Mahajan, more particularly the split in the law firm representing the appellants;and in the Interests ofjustice,we set-aside thejudgmentpassed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the suit subject to payment of costs of
Rs.5.00,000/-(RupeesFiveLakhs).Outofthesaid amount,Rs.l lakh would be paid to the respondents; Rs.2 lakhs would be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society; and Rs.2 lakhs would be deposited withtheDelhiHigh CourtMediationand ConciliationCentre.
Weareinformedthatthe affidavitofevidencehasnow beenpreparedand stands filed in the present appeal. A copy ofsame has been supplied to the counsel for the respondent. We direct that an additional original copy ofthe sameaffidavitevidencebepreparedandfiled inthesuitwithintendays.
List the matter before the Joint Registrar for marking exhibits on
25.11.2019.
With the above directions, the appeal and pending application, being
C.M.40268/2019,stand disposed of.
C.M.2784n/2niS Letthecross-objectionsberegisteredandnumberedasaseparateappeal.
The application stands disposed of. •
RFA(OSKCOMM)
W)
/2019(to be numbered)
After some hearing in the matter, it is agreed that since an issue has already been framed with regard to the territorialjurisdiction ofthe Court,it will be open to the respondent to urge the learned Single Judge to decide that issue as a preliminary issue.
In view ofthe above,the cross-objections also stand disposed of.
'X, G.S.SISTANI,J NOVEMBER 06,2019 rb
C.M.2784n/2niS Letthecross-objectionsberegisteredandnumberedasaseparateappeal.
The application stands disposed of. •
RFA(OSKCOMM)
W)
/2019(to be numbered)
After some hearing in the matter, it is agreed that since an issue has already been framed with regard to the territorialjurisdiction ofthe Court,it will be open to the respondent to urge the learned Single Judge to decide that issue as a preliminary issue.
In view ofthe above,the cross-objections also stand disposed of.
'X, G.S.SISTANI,J NOVEMBER 06,2019 rb
RFA(OS)(COMM)8/2018
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J page3of3 V
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J page3of3 V
JUDGMENT