Dismissed

M/S Hi Tek Engineers & Ors. v. Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Counsel (Tifac)

Delhi HC16 Feb 2016FAO(OS)/632/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses an application for restoration of an appeal that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The Single Bench found insufficient cause for recall, noting past attempts to delay proceedings via jurisdiction and arbitration pleas.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution (CM 13387/2016) was dismissed.

M/S Hi Tek Engineers & Ors. Vs Technology… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 632/2015

¶4

M/S HI TEK ENGINEERS & ORS ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Vikas Tomar, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION FORECASTING AND ASSESSMENT COUNSEL (TIFAC) ..... Respondent Represented by: None

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 18.04.2016 CM 13388/2016

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

¶11

CM 13387/2016 (restoration)

¶12

The appeal was filed belatedly. The delay is of 125 days. On November 17, 2015 notice was issued returnable for February 16, 2016. Process fee was not filed and therefore notice could not be issued. None appeared for the appellant on February 16, 2016, therefore the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶13

Seeking restoration, it is pleaded that Shri Shashank Shekhar Parihar, the counsel engaged by the appellant was admitted in Moolchand Hospital on February 03, 2016 and unfortunately expired on same day.

¶14

page 1 of 3

¶15

FAO(OS) 632/2015

¶16

The appeal has been filed by two advocates namely Akshat Goel and Shashank Shekhar Parihar.

¶17

There is no explanation as to why Shri Akshat Goel could not prosecute the appeal. That apart, we find that the appellants have admitted the claim of the respondent and have raised issues to simply delay the proceedings.

¶18

Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants was dismissed on August 13, 2013, noting that the plea of this Court having no territorial jurisdiction raised by the appellant was a ruse inasmuch as in the plaint it was pleaded that the money was disbursed to the appellant No.1, by way of loan, at Delhi and was to be repaid at Delhi. Further, the agreement between the parties has a clause that Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

¶19

Overlooking the exclusive jurisdiction clause, since the loan was disbursed at Delhi and was repayable at Delhi, this Court would have jurisdiction as rightly held by the learned Single Judge.

¶20

The second contention concerning there being an arbitration clause in the agreement has been dealt with in the impugned order dated April 21, 2015 which shows that IA No.15086/2014 filed by the appellants invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been deferred for consideration.

¶21

It is clearly an attempt to delay the proceedings.

¶22

Not satisfied with a sufficient cause to recall the order dated February 16, 2016, we dismiss CM 13387/2016.

¶23

page 2 of 3

¶24

FAO(OS) 632/2015

¶25

No cost.

¶26

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶27

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶28

APRIL 18, 2016 ‘ga’

¶29

page 3 of 3

¶30

FAO(OS) 632/2015

M/S Hi Tek Engineers & Ors. v. Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Counsel (Tifac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hi Tek Engineers & Ors. v. Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Counsel (Tifac)

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

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jagat Singh

M/S Badri Vinimay Private Limited Vs Mmtc Limited

Surender Kumar Vs Rita Vashisht & Anr.

Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Capital Builders and Ors.

Mulakh Raj Jain Vs Mahavir Vishwa Vidyapeeth Prabandh Samiti & Ors.

National Highways Authority of India Vs M/S Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manish Kumar Gupta

M/S National Highways Authority of India Vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

M/S Asset Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd. Vs M/S Kwick Travels Private Limited and Ors.

Sardar Nanak Singh and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jagat Singh

Jitender Pal Singh Vs State

Ram Kishore & Anr. Vs State of Delhi

Ajoy Khanderia Vs Barclays Bank & Anr.