Quashed

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. v. Life Technologies India Private Limited Thr Rajan Sahni

Delhi HC19 Jul 2016FAO(OS)/175/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi in appeal set aside an order dismissing applications under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC. The court held the Single Judge must hear arguments on territorial jurisdiction for internet transactions citing Division Bench decisions, and remitted the matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Single Judge for fresh decision; applications listed for July 27, 2016.

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. Vs Life… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~67

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 175/2016 & CM APPLS.22152/2016 & 25055/2016

¶4

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC

¶5

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall with Ms. Nancy Roy and Mr. Jayant Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THR RAJAN SAHNI

¶8

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid with Ms. Mitali Chauhan, Ms. Roshni Anand and Ms. Shubhi Sharma, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

O R D E R % 19.07.2016

¶12

Several applications were disposed of by the impugned order dated 21.05.2016, which included applications under order 7 Rule 10 CPC, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.

¶13

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the parties in detail, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought to hear the arguments on each of these applications. This is so, because particularly in respect of applications under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, certain decisions of Division Benches have not been noticed in the impugned decision pertaining to territorial jurisdiction in the case of internet access/transactions. Those decisions have to be considered in the light of the arguments, which may be advanced by learned counsel for the parties. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on each application after hearing the arguments of counsel for both the sides. The position as obtaining on 26.05.2016 shall continue, till the decision by the learned Single Judge.

¶15

The applications be now listed before the learned Single Judge for directions on 27^th July, 2016 in the first instance.

¶16

The present appeal stands disposed of. We are making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶17

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶18

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶19

JULY 19, 2016 / n

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. v. Life Technologies India Private Limited Thr Rajan Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. v. Life Technologies India Private Limited Thr Rajan Sahni

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

Sandhya Education Society & Ors. Vs Kamlesh Kumari & Ors.

Arjun Deo Kehr Vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors.

Pushottam Lal Tandon Vs M/S City Super Market

Suresh Chand & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Havells India Limited & Anr. Vs Vivek Kumar & Ors.

Mcdonalds India Private Limited Vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors.

Dart Industries Inc. & Anr. Vs Techno Plast & Ors.

Vikaas Ahluwalia Vs Avnija Ahluwalia (Minor) & Anr.

Sandhya Education Society & Ors. Vs Kamlesh Kumari & Ors.

Anuradha Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Videocon Telecommunications Ltd. Vs Indus Towers Ltd.

Finolex Cables Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited & Anr.

Suresh Kumar and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jai Singh Rana & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.