Disposed

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2012APP/260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the operation of its judgment reversing the Single Judge for four weeks to allow execution of an existing contract with DTL Ltd., subject to a non-enter-into-fresh-contract condition.

What did the court decide?

Stay of operation of the reversing judgment for four weeks, subject to respondents not entering fresh contracts.

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs Sergi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

app-40/12

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL [LD.] NO. 40 OF 2012 IN SUIT [LD.] NO. 3026 OF 2011 WITH APPEAL [LD.] NO. 70 OF 2012 IN SUIT [LD.] NO. 3026 OF 2011

¶6

CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd and Others. ..Respondents.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Ravi Kadam and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vishal Kanade, Mr. Amit Jajoo and Mr. Atul Singh i/b M/s. Paras Kuhad & Associates for the appellant.

¶9

Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kher, Mr. Chaitanya Chavan & Ms. Rani Boazz Law Chambers for Respondent no. 1.

¶10

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 16, 2012 .

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

. After the judgment is pronounced, learned counsel for

¶13

respondents–defendants prays for the stay of operation of the judgment

¶14

for some time in order to enable the respondents to have further recourse

¶15

in accordance with law.

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

app-40/12

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant–plaintiff opposes the

¶19

prayer and submits that since the previous orders passed by the Civil Court are held to be subsisting, there is no justification for making such a prayer.

¶20

Since, the orders of the learned Single Judge, against which orders these appeals are directed, were pronounced on 15^th November 2011 and 17^th January 2012 holding that there was no subsisting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and since the said orders were not stayed during pendency of these appeals, the operation of this judgment reversing the orders of the learned Single Judge is stayed for a period of four weeks. This, however, shall be subject to the condition that the respondent-defendants shall not enter into fresh contract with another party in respect of the goods in question.

¶21

It is clarified that this stay order is passed in order to enable the respondents–defendants to execute the contract entered into with DTL Ltd, which contract was already entered into earlier.

¶22

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. v. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Excel Crop Care Ltd. and Excel Industries Ltd. Vs Heranba Industries Ltd.

Super Seal Industries Vs Mahesh Shantilal Parekh

Viniyog Parivar Trust Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Shivshankar Jagannath Kini and 2 Ors. Vs 1(a) Pravin Bharatsingh Thakur and Ors.

Parveen S. Sehgal Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors.