JAIN SHIKANJI PRIVATE LIMITED v. SATISH KUMAR JAIN

Delhi High Court · 18 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8248-DB
Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain
FAO (COMM) 130/2023
2025:DHC:8248-DB
civil other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court corrected typographical errors in its judgment and emphasized that the appellant violated interim orders by continuing to use the old corporate name in transactions until compelled to change it after the respondent's complaint.

Full Text
Translation output
FAO (COMM) 130/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO (COMM) 130/2023
JAIN SHIKANJI PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
SATISH KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Gaurav Barathi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R 18.09.2025
JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondent, pointing out certain typographical errors in our judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed in the above appeal.

2. As these are minor typographical errors, the same are corrected as under: a. In paragraph 6, in the name of the Company word „Restaurant‟ is deleted. Paragraph 6 shall now be read as:

“6. The appellant, through Mr. Anubhav Jain, further undertook not to use the said trademarks or any material bearing the same. It was further stated that the corporate name of the appellant has been changed to “Hawa Hawai Shikanji Private Limited”.

b. In paragraph 14, instead of the word “that it”, the same shall be read as „that is‟. Paragraph 14 shall now be read as under: “14. The additional documents show and it is FAO (COMM) 130/2023 now admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from Mr. Anubhav Jain who is present in Court, that for the first time, the request for the change of name to the UPI service provider, that is, PAYTM, was made by the appellant only on 05.09.2025, that is, post our Order dated 26.08.2025. For all this period, the appellant, therefore, blatantly and without any regret continued to violate not only the interim orders but also the repeated undertakings given to this Court, by transacting and accepting payments in the name of “Jain Shikanji Private Limited”. It is only when the respondent complained of the same, that the appellant hurriedly has moved to get the name changed with the UPI service provider, which request as of now been accepted by the UPI service provider, as claimed by the appellant.”

3. This order shall be uploaded also as a corrigendum to the judgment dated 17.09.2025.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/Arya/DG