Allowed

M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors. v. Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2019FAO(OS)/182/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge's appeal was filed challenging the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, dismissed because the Judge refused to consider merits due to the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC against one appellant. The bench held the Single Judge erred not to consider the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to reconsider the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on merits.

M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors. Vs Hotel Hans… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 182/2018, CM No. 50572/2018

¶4

M/S MIRAGE HOSPITALITY & ORS

¶5

..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Grover, Adv. with Mr. Shivesh P. Singh, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

HOTEL HANS PVT LTD & ORS

¶8

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Adv. with Mr. Ajay Sondhi, Mr. Ashish Sharma & Mr. Jaskaran Mehra, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶10

O R D E R % 14.01.2019

¶11

Even though various prayers are made in the appeal, today during the

¶12

course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue

¶13

that the appellants are only challenging second part of the order dated April

¶14

03, 2018 (Annexure-A/1) so far as it pertains to rejection of appellant’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC i.e IA 10231/2017 in CS(OS) 2379/2015. He categorically states that he is neither challenging the order dated April 04, 2016 (Annexure-A/2) nor the first part of the order dated April 03, 2018 contained in Annexure-A/1, so far as it pertains to initiating

¶15

proceedings against the appellant No.3 herein under Section 340 Cr.PC. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that for those prayers, appellants would take recourse to remedy as may be available under law.

¶16

As far as the rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC

¶17

is concerned, it is the case of the appellants that the learned Single Judge rejected the said application without considering it on merit and only on account of the fact that prima facie a case for taking criminal action against the appellant No.3 herein has been initiated. This aspect of the matter is found to be correct as the order passed in IA No. 10231/2017, which is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC only indicate that it is being dismissed for the reasons indicated in the order pertaining to initiating action in exercising power under Section 340 Cr.PC read with Sections 191 and 209 IPC.

¶18

In our considered view, when there were various grounds raised in the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the same should have been considered on its own merit and not be rejected only on the ground that there is a concealment for which action under Section 340 Cr.PC is required to be taken against the appellant No.3 herein. Taking note of the above, we remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge to consider

¶19

the application being IA No. 10231/2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC afresh

¶20

in accordance with law and on its own merit after hearing all concerned.

¶21

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

¶22

CM No. 50572/2018 (for stay)

¶23

Dismissed as infructuous.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶26

JANUARY 14, 2019 /ak

M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors. v. Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors. v. Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

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

The Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India Vs Zeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Raj Kumar Sabharwal Vs Sneh Lata Sethi & Anr.

Rekha Kapoor Vs Dr Pavan Chandra & Anr.

Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Assam Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.

Coastal Andhra Power Limited Vs Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Pandit Restaurant (Upvan) & Ors. Vs Hotel & Restaurants Association of Northern India (Hrani) & Ors.

M/S Matrix Infosoft Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Planman Tehnologies (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Sadhna Media Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust & Anr.

The Indian Newspaper Society & Anr. Vs the Chairman Press Council of India & Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Sagar Sharma and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Asha & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nyayabhoomi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sushil Gahlot Vs Mohinder Singh & Ors.