Partly allowed

Havells India Ltd. v. Puri Electicals Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016FAO(OS)/597/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench upheld the recusal of the Single Judge due to his prior appearance as counsel for the opposing party in an unrelated matter. The appeal regarding ex-parte stay was disposed of by transposing reasons from a predecessor Bench's order, while instructing the Single Judge to decide the merits on a future date after hearing the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte ad-interim order continued pending disposal of the stay application; suit marked to another bench; Single Judge to decide merits after hearing respondents.

Havells India Ltd. Vs Puri Electicals Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~8

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO(OS) 597/2015

¶4

HAVELLS INDIA LTD ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Bitika Sharma, Advocate with Ms.Jaya Mandella, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

PURI ELECTICALS LTD & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Dharita Malkan, Advocate with Ms.Arunima Singh, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶8

O R D E R % 12.01.2016

¶9

The appellant’s grievance is two-fold. Firstly that the learned Single Judge who had appeared as a counsel, albeit in an unconnected matter against the appellant, having recused in another matter in which the appellant was a party ought to have recused. Secondly against the merits of the reason given declining ad-interim ex-parte stay.

¶10

As regards the first grievance, learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that she has nothing to say because it relates to the propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the absence of the respondent.

¶11

FAO(OS) No.597/2015

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

In our opinion once the learned Single Judge had recused in another matter for the reason as a counsel he had appeared against the appellant, albeit in some other matter, recusal was warranted even in the instant suit because the reason for the recusal in the first was the same as in the second.

¶14

On merits we find that the predecessor Bench while issuing notice has recorded prima-facie reasons as to why ex-parte ad-interim injunction was warranted followed by the ad-interim injunction being granted as also Local Commissioner appointed.

¶15

We dispose of the appeal with consent of parties recording that the reasons given by the Division Bench in the ex-parte ad-interim order dated October 29, 2015 would be transposed as the reasons for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim order in suit and the respondents (impleaded as defendants) in the suit would be entitled to take all pleas in the written statement and the opposition to the confirmation of the same.

¶16

Uninfluenced by the ex-parte ad-interim view taken by the Predecessor Bench, which needless to state was in the absence of the respondents, the learned Single Judge would decide IA No.22361/2015, which application has been listed by the learned Single Judge for consideration on February 24, 2016. Declining ex-parte ad-interim stay the learned Judge has simply issued notice.

¶17

The ex-parte ad-interim order passed by the predecessor Division Bench on October 29, 2015 shall continue till disposal of IA No.22361/2015. The learned Judge In-charge Original Side would mark the suit to some other Bench.

¶18

No costs.

FAO(OS) No.597/2015

Page 2 of 3

CM Nos.24705-06/2015

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶23

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶24

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

¶25

JANUARY 12, 2016 mamta

¶26

FAO(OS) No.597/2015

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Havells India Ltd. v. Puri Electicals Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Havells India Ltd. v. Puri Electicals Ltd. & 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

Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lok Nayak Hospital

M/S Ariba Inc. & Anr. Vs Jsl Limited

M/S Ariba Inc. & Anr. Vs Jsl Ltd.

Vijay Verma Vs Krishan Kumar Verma & Ors.

M/S Today Hotels (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Intecture India Designs Pvt. Ltd.

Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.

M/S. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs Radico Khaitan Ltd.

B S Oberoi Vs P S Oberoi & Ors.

Jitender Chawla Vs M/S Choudhary Cement Agency

Iiaria Kapur Vs Rakesh Kapur & Ors.

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission and Ors.

Nabin Kishore Chouhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Kumar Swain Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Neural Magic Systems Ltd. & Ors. Vs Canara Bank & Anr.