Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Ahuja Telecommunication & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Order in suit for injunction and damages. Court accepted belated affidavit of service regarding defendant No.3 Ravinder Kumar who appeared. Plaintiff confined damages claim to seizure value. Court proceeded ex-parte and decreed relief.
What did the court decide?
Permanent injunction; recovery of Rs. 9,17,000 damages; delivery of seized goods; costs of Rs. 5 lacs.
What the court decided
$~6
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CS(COMM) 348/2019 & IA No.9047/2019(u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Tusha Malhotra and Ms. Pankhuri Malik, Advs.
Versus
AHUJA TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 20.01.2020
- This order is in continuation of the earlier orders with effect from 9th July, 2019.
- The summons issued to the defendant No.3 Ravinder Kumar are reported to be unserved. The counsel for the plaintiff on first call however stated that an affidavit of service had been filed. The same was not on record. The matter was passed over and the affidavit of service is now on record. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant No.3 has been served.
- There is no reason to disbelieve the counsel for the plaintiff.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to proceed against an unserved defendant when an affidavit of service is subsequently produced and accepted.
Whether to remit the plaintiff for ex-parte evidence when the claim is confined to specific seized assets.
Coram
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court