Disposed

Daimler India Commecial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshit Jain & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2020CS(COMM)/559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a joint application for settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the High Court of Delhi decreed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 in terms of the settlement terms and dismissed it as withdrawn against defendant 3. The court granted a 50% court fee refund.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed against defendants 1 and 2 per settlement; dismissed as withdrawn against defendant 3; 50% court fee refund granted.

Daimler India Commecial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 559/2019, I.A. 13832/2019 DAIMLER INDIA COMMECIAL VEHICLES PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Saif Khan, Mr.Shobhit Agrawal & Mr.Deepank Singhal, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

HARSHIT JAIN & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Palav Agarwal & Mr.Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Advocates alongwith Mr.Harshit Jain & Mr.Sunil Jain, IN Person.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 11.02.2020

¶9

I.A. 1938/2020 ( Application on behalf of plaintiff and defendants under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC for settlement of the suit )

¶10

This is a joint application filed by the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is stated that the suit has been settled between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff does not press for any relief against defendant no.3.

¶11

The terms of settlement are contained in paragraphs 2(i) to 2(x) of the application. The application is signed by the authorised signatory of the plaintiff, and the sole proprietors of the defendant nos.1 and 2. It is also signed by the counsel for the said parties and supported by affidavits CS(COMM) 559/2019 Page 1 of 2

¶12

of the signatories. Learned counsel for the parties to the settlement submit that, in terms of the application, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have agreed to subject themselves to a decree in terms of paragraphs 46(a) to (d) of the plaint. They seek a decree as against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the settlement.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on the basis of materials placed on record, I do not find any impediment to grant of a decree as sought in this application. The suit is decreed, as against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of paragraphs 2(i) to 2(ix) of the application and prayer clauses 46(a) to (d) of the plaint. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. As the plaintiff does not press any relief against defendant no.3, the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn qua defendant no.3.

¶14

Learned counsel for the defendants has handed over two demand drafts for the cumulative sum of ₹5,00,000/- to learned counsel for the plaintiff in Court today, in compliance of paragraph 2(viii) of the application.

¶15

In view of the fact that the suit has been settled at a pre-trial stage, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of 50% of the court fees under Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Registry is directed to issue a certificate to this effect.

¶16

The suit and the pending applications are disposed of in terms of the above.

¶17

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 11, 2020/ „pv‟/s CS(COMM) 559/2019

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Daimler India Commecial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshit Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daimler India Commecial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshit Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oberoi Hotel Private Limited & Anr. Vs Hotel Trident Inn & Ors.

Oberoi Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs Hotel Oberoi & Ors.

Pharmacyclics, Llc & Anr. Vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

Lt Foods Limited Vs Rbak Agro India Pvt. Ltd.

Salvatore Ferragamo S.P.A. Vs Metro Brands Ltd.

Sandisk Llc & Anr. Vs M/S Cross Accessories & Ors.

Shri Deepanshu Goel Vs M/S Vijay Trading Co. & Ors.

Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Naman Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Minakshi Kashyap Vs State & Ors.

Shakuntala Nath & Anr. Vs Rajeev Dhingra

Arnav Kashyap & Anr. Vs Kamlesh

Ircon International Limited Vs C.R. Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Another

Nidhi Goel Vs Sh. Ashish Goel

Anil Arora Vs Ramesh Chandra Sachdeva