Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMTED Appellant
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMTED Appellant
VERSUS
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON Respondent , FAO(OS) (COMM) 54/2017 & CM No.8544/2017
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED Appellant
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON Respondent Presence: Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Mr.Jayant Mehta, Mr. Shubham Aggarwal and Ms.Pallavi
Verma, Advs. for the petitioner Mr.C.S.Vaidyanathan and Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr. Advocates with Ms.Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.Nikhil Chawla, Mr.Adithya Jayaraj, Mr. Saksham Garg and
Mr.Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for the respondent
Verma, Advs. for the petitioner Mr.C.S.Vaidyanathan and Ms.Pratibha M.Singh, Sr. Advocates with Ms.Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Mr.Nikhil Chawla, Mr.Adithya Jayaraj, Mr. Saksham Garg and
Mr.Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for the respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
03.05.2017 Counsel for the plaintiff/respondents objects to the rnaintainability of the present appeals in view of the orders that are proposed. In view of the ultimate order made, the Court does not propose to rule on it and leaves the question open.
These two appeals challenge orders by the learned Single
Judge, in a pending suit CS(OS) 442/2013 renumbered as CS(OS)
(COMM) 115/2017. Both are in respect of orders of the Single
Judge, upholding the Registrar's orders accepting the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff i.e. Ericsson. The appellant-defendants
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
03.05.2017 Counsel for the plaintiff/respondents objects to the rnaintainability of the present appeals in view of the orders that are proposed. In view of the ultimate order made, the Court does not propose to rule on it and leaves the question open.
These two appeals challenge orders by the learned Single
Judge, in a pending suit CS(OS) 442/2013 renumbered as CS(OS)
(COMM) 115/2017. Both are in respect of orders of the Single
Judge, upholding the Registrar's orders accepting the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff i.e. Ericsson. The appellant-defendants
FAO(OS) (COMM) 89/2017 & conn.
2017:DHC:9066-DB argue that the Registrar General's orders and those of the Single
Judge rejecting the chamber appeals, overlooked important material circumstances such as the fact that the bank guarantees were conditional in point oftime and that they also contained objectionable terms. The plaintiff on the other hand urges that the terms of the bank guarantee are similar to those accepted during the pendency of the suit. They rely upon previous orders of the Registrar General dated
29.1.2016, which had accepted guarantees containing identical terms.
The submissions made by the appellant and the grievance which essentially pertains to the conditions spelt out in the guarantee with respect to time, this Court is of the opinion having regard to the past conduct of the parties the apprehensions articulated are not merited. Yet at the same time to ensure that there is no lapse, at least with respect to the validity of the guarantees, a direction is issued to the Registry to list the suit before the concernedroster Judge, at least a month before the expiry of the validity of the bank guarantees that have been furnished so far, for appropriate orders towards ensuring that fresh bank guarantees are brought on record. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
Order dasti under signature ofthe Court Master.
S.RAVINDRABHAT, J YOGESH KHANNA, J MAY 03, 2017A^LD
2017:DHC:9066-DB argue that the Registrar General's orders and those of the Single
Judge rejecting the chamber appeals, overlooked important material circumstances such as the fact that the bank guarantees were conditional in point oftime and that they also contained objectionable terms. The plaintiff on the other hand urges that the terms of the bank guarantee are similar to those accepted during the pendency of the suit. They rely upon previous orders of the Registrar General dated
29.1.2016, which had accepted guarantees containing identical terms.
The submissions made by the appellant and the grievance which essentially pertains to the conditions spelt out in the guarantee with respect to time, this Court is of the opinion having regard to the past conduct of the parties the apprehensions articulated are not merited. Yet at the same time to ensure that there is no lapse, at least with respect to the validity of the guarantees, a direction is issued to the Registry to list the suit before the concernedroster Judge, at least a month before the expiry of the validity of the bank guarantees that have been furnished so far, for appropriate orders towards ensuring that fresh bank guarantees are brought on record. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
Order dasti under signature ofthe Court Master.
S.RAVINDRABHAT, J YOGESH KHANNA, J MAY 03, 2017A^LD
FAO(OS)(COMM) 89/2017 &conn. • Page 2 of2
2017:DHC:9066-DB
2017:DHC:9066-DB
JUDGMENT