Allowed

Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson

Delhi HC9 Jan 2017FAO(OS) (COMM)/6/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application allowed in a suit for recovery based on a bounced cheque. The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing listing of interlocutory applications and allowed the Registrar General to accept the bank guarantee without prejudice to pending rights, without examining maintainability or merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; IA 11556/2016 and OA 239/2016 to be listed on 11.01.2017; Registrar General to accept bank guarantee without prejudice to pending applications.

Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs Telefonaktiebolaget Lm… — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~96

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 6/2017

¶4

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr Ashok K. Aggarwal, Mr Jayant K. Mehta, Mr Gaurav Vij, Mr Shwetank Tripathi, Mr Shubham Agarwal and Ms Pallavi Verma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON ..... Respondents Through: Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mrs Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr C.M. Lall, Mr S. Chaudhary, Mr Ashutosh Kumar, Mr P. Bahl, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R % 09.01.2017 CAV 13/2017

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent/caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged.

¶11

CM 823-824/2017

¶12

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

FAO (OS) (COMM.) 6/2017 & CM 822/2017

¶14

The major grievance of the appellant is that the IA 11556/2016 has not been taken up for hearing and despite an early hearing application having been filed and allowed, the matter was not heard on 02.01.2017. In the meanwhile the Registrar General of this court is going ahead with further steps towards acceptance of the bank guarantee furnished by the plaintiff in the suit and that there is every likelihood that a consequential order requiring the appellant to make an equivalent payment to the plaintiff may be passed by the Registrar General tomorrow itself.

¶15

We are of the view that this appeal can be disposed of by directing that the IA11556/2016 and OA 239/2016 be listed before the learned Single Judge for disposal on 11.01.2017 in the first instance. In the meanwhile the Registrar General shall proceed with the steps towards accepting the bank guarantee but the same shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the IA 11556/2016 and OA 239/2016. There was objection on the part of the respondent that the present appeal itself was not maintainable but we are in effect not entertaining the appeal as such because we feel that the learned Single Judge can deal with the matter by hearing the above application and the OA 239/2016. It is for this reason we are not going into the issue whether the appeal is maintainable or not. Neither do we need to examine the merits of the matter.

¶16

The appeal stands disposed of.

¶17

Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

¶18

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶19

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶20

JANUARY 09, 2017 kb

Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson

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

M/S Ardee Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Anuradha Bhatia

M/S Ardee Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Yashpal & Sons

Frick India Limited Vs Pamela Manmohan Singh & Ors.

Almighty Techserv Vs Airports Authority of India

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation Private Limited Vs Delhi Cantonment Board & Anr.

M/S Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.