Allowed

M/S Acs Capital Services LLP v. M/S Quick Clean Private Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Oct 2024CRP/2158/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against trial court order imposing Rs.10,000/- costs on the plaintiff for an adjournment sought due to counsel's ill-health during cross-examination of D.W.1. The High Court held the cost excessive and reduced it to Rs.2,000/- to compensate the witness.

What did the court decide?

Costs imposed by trial court reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,000/-; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S Acs Capital Services LLP Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2158 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 05-08-2024 passed in O.S.No.120 of 2018^onthe file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S ACS CAPITAL SERVICES LLP, REGISTERED OFFICE AT^#203, 15-66, Whisper Meadows, Prabhunagar, Poranki Vijayawada,^Andhra Pradesh - 521137, Represented by its Designated/Managing^PartnerSri Sarath Chandra Suryadevara.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

M/S QUICK CLEAN PRIVATE LIMITED, Registered Office^at824,8th Floor, Pearls Omaxe, Plot No.1, B-1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi - 110034.

¶12

Sri Subhash Chander Gupta, Director, M/s. Quick Clean Private Limited, resident of BC-9 (West), Ground Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110088.

¶13

Sri Ankur Gupta, Director, M/s. Quick Clean Private Limited, Resident of BC-9, (West), Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi - 110088.

¶14

Sri Anshul Gupta, Director, M/s. Quick Clean Private Limited, resident of

¶15

BC-9 (W) Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi - 110088.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF ?()7d

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against the Suit O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada, pending disposal of this Civil Revision, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶20

: SRI J VENKATESWARA PRASAD

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents :

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶23

APHC010408482024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶25

[3311]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶30

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2158/2024

¶31

Between:

¶32

1.M/S ACS CAPITAL SERVICES LLP, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 203, 15-66, WHISPER MEADOWS, PRABHUNAGAR, PORANKI VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521137, REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED/MANAGING PARTNER SRI SARATH CHANDRA SURYADEVARA.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

1.M/S QUICK CLEAN PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 824, 8‘^ FLOOR, PEARLS OMAXE, PLOT N0.1, B-1, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110034.

¶36

2.SRI SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, DIRECTOR, M/S. QUICK CLEAN PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDENT OF BC-9 (WEST), GROUND FLOOR, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI- 110088.

¶37

3.SRI ANKUR GUPTA, DIRECTOR, M/S. QUICK CLEAN PRIVATE LIMITED, RESIDENT OF BC-9, (WEST), SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110088.

¶38

4.SRI ANSHUL GUPTA, DIRECTOR, M/S. QUICK CLEAN PRIVATE -

¶39

LIMITED, RESIDENT OF BC-9 (W) SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI 110088.

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

BSB,J CRP.No.2158 of2024

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

1. J VENKATESWARA PRASAD

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(s):

¶45

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 05.08.2024 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Krishna. Vijayawada imposing heavy costs of Rs. 10,000/- directing the plaintiff to pay the same to the defendant witness.

¶49

The main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of a good cause to seek adjournment due to ill-health of the counsel for the revision petitioner for not being able to conduct cross-examination of D.W.1 on 05.08.2024, heavy cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed to adjourn the matter from 05.08.2024 to 06.08.2024.

¶50

He further stated that D.W.1 is no other than the authorized representative of defendant and not a party witness and therefore imposition of huge amount is unjust, particularly as the witness failed to appear previously on ten adjournments. He further stated that the witness came from Delhi by flight, but it is part of the expenses to participate in the trial. 4. Considering the above submissions, merely because the witness had to stay back for one day for completion of the cross examination, imposition of huge amount of cost is not required in the above circumstances.

¶51

¶52

C^'

¶53

BSB,J CRP.No.2158 of2024

¶54

to the

¶55

to the -xten. Of payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,000/- to compensate the nconvenience to the witness. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/- B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District

¶61

One CC to SRI. J VENKATESWARA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 04/10/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.2158 of 2024

C? oV.
O 17 OCT 202<| CO
P
^ Currenl Secuor j

¶69

ALLOWING THE CRP

M/S Acs Capital Services LLP v. M/S Quick Clean Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Acs Capital Services LLP v. M/S Quick Clean Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Water User Association NO.347 Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.V. Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K v Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs M Rambabu

Smt. Meesala Lakshmi Devi, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Subhashini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh