Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. F+ B+

Delhi HC2 Sept 2016CS(OS)/1394/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court consolidated two pending cross-suits, CS(OS) No. 1394/2004 and CS(OS) No. 627/2005. It quashing prior transfer orders due to conflicting jurisdiction head, ordered their joint transfer to the Court of the District Judge (South-East), Saket Courts.

What did the court decide?

Transferred to Court of District Judge (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs City Palace Electronics… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) NO. 1394/2004

¶4

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

CITY PALACE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Defendants Through: Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, proxy counsel for counsel for the defendant.

¶7

AND

¶8

4+ CS(OS) NO. 627/2005 CITY PALACE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. R.C.S. Bhadoria, proxy counsel for counsel for the Plaintiff.

¶9

versus

¶10

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant

¶11

Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Adv.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶14

O R D E R % 02.09.2016

¶15

The counsels state that these are cross suits and though have not been consolidated but are to be tried together.

¶16

The suits, on an earlier occasion, in accordance with the Office

¶17

Order dated 24^th November, 2015 of Hon’ble the Chief Justice in

¶18

exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Delhi High Court

¶19

CS(OS) NO. 1394/2004 & CS(OS) NO. 627/2005 page 1 of 2

¶20

(Amendment) Act, 2015 were ordered to be transferred to the Court

¶21

of District Judge (South) Saket Courts, Delhi but have been received back for the reason that as far as CS(OS) No.1394/2004 is concerned, the jurisdiction is of the District Judge (South-East) Saket Courts,

¶22

New Delhi and as far as CS(OS) No.627/2005 is concerned the jurisdiction is of the District Judge, Shahdara, Delhi.

¶23

The counsels state that since the suits are to be tried together, both suits be transferred to the Court of the District Judge (SouthEast), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

¶24

I am satisfied that the aforesaid request is tenable.

¶25

Accordingly, the suits, including in exercise of power under

¶26

Section 24 of the CPC, are transferred to the Court of the District Judge (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi.

¶27

The parties to appear before the Court of the Additional District

¶28

Judge/District Judge (South-East) Saket Courts, New Delhi on 4^th October, 2016.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶30

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016

¶31

‘M’ ..

¶32

CS(OS) NO. 1394/2004 & CS(OS) NO. 627/2005

¶33

page 2 of 2

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. F+ B+

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. F+ B+

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

Walia Builders Vs Som Dutt Builders Ltd.

Kads Fashion Vs Frontline Fashions Unlimited & Anr.

Rajnesh Pathak Vs Karuna Lakhanpal & Ors.

Sh. Chander Prakash Kumra and Ors. Vs Smt. Seema Bhargava Ac+

Y.D.Builders and Hotels Vs DDA Fc+

M/S Y.D.Builders & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) Fc+

Kamla Family Trust Vs Air India Ac+

Shri Vivan Mehra Vs Smt. Gita Kwatra & Ors. Bc+

Designwise India Private Limited Vs M/S Globus Interior and Anr.

Walia Builders Vs Som Dutt Builders Ltd.

Baljit Kaur Jain Vs Ajay Kumar Jain

Sap Ag & Anr. Vs Suji Kumar & Anr.

Bharat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Sachdeva & Anr.

Accord Alloys Limited Vs M/S Pee Ell Alloys and Another