Disposed

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. Makino International Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC18 Sept 2024CM(M)/3277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi restored the petitioner (accused defendant)'s right to defend, directing the plaintiff/defendant to file a written statement within 30 days. Due to the plaintiff's failure to supply documents and the defendant's delay in moving an application, the defendant was ordered to pay a penalty.

What did the court decide?

Defence of petitioner restored; Writer's statement to be filed within 30 days; Petitioner penalised with an amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Makino International… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~98

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 18^th September, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 3277/2024 & CM APPL. 49833/2024 CITY CLINIC PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocate. Versus

¶5

MAKINO INTERNATIONAL HEALTHCARE PVT LTD

¶6

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶8

A report has been received from the learned Trial Court which clearly indicates that there was no service upon the defendant but despite that the counsel for defendant had appeared before the Court and had filed his ‘memo of appearance’ which was taken on record. Such report of the learned Trial Court also indicates that the directions were rather given to the plaintiff to supply the copy of plaint and documents by way of electronic mode.

¶9

This Court has also seen the order dated 4^th September, 2023 passed by learned Trial Court whereby specific direction was given to the plaintiff to supply a complete set of the plaint and documents by way of electronic mode.

¶10

Naturally, the time to file written statement would run, once such set of plaint is supplied.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, in all fairness, admits that no such copy was ever sent to defendant through electronic mode.

¶12

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff states that he would have no objection if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner (defendant) to file written statement and to participate in the proceeding before the learned Trial Court in view of aforesaid peculiar factual matrix.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

CM(M) 3277/2024 1

¶15

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 11:04:36

¶16

As directed by this Court, during the course of the present hearing, the entire set of plaint and documents has been supplied to Mr. Ajit Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant who confirms that such set provided to him is complete and legible and undertakes that written statement would be filed within 30 days from today, before the learned Trial Court.

¶17

This Court would hasten to supplement that ideally, if entire set of plaint had not been supplied by the plaintiff, it should have not waited unnecessarily and should have rather moved appropriate application before the learned Trial Court apprising the learned Trial Court about the fact of non-supply of plaint. Such non-action on the part of defendant has, obviously, also resulted in delay in the matter.

¶18

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of with the directions that the defence of the petitioner is restored and the petitioner (defendant) would file written statement within 30 days from today with advance copy to opposite side and learned Trial Court would take such written statement on record and would proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

¶19

Simultaneously, the petitioner is also burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/- as he had no reason to wait for around three months and should have immediately apprised the Court that it had not received the plaint through e-mode.

¶20

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶22

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024/ss

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

CM(M) 3277/2024 2

¶25

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 11:04:36

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. Makino International Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. v. Makino International Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

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

Sharad Aggarwala Vs Sharda Bubna & Anr.

Deep Chand Vs Surji@Suraj Singh (Deaceased) through Lrs and Ors.

Uma and Ors. Vs Renu Kumari and Ors.

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Mangal Impex through Mr. Rajeev Agarwal & Ors.

Pratap Ranjan & Anr. Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Ashu Sharma & Anr. Vs Framework Interiors

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Mangal Enterprises & Ors.

MD Sadab & Anr. Vs Mehtab Ahmad Saifi

Sharad Aggarwala Vs Sharda Bubna & Anr.

Deep Chand Vs Surji@Suraj Singh (Deaceased) through Lrs and Ors.

Uma and Ors. Vs Renu Kumari and Ors.

Warm Forging Private Limited Vs Reckon Industries Limited

Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managemnet Committee (Dsgmc) Vs T P Singh & Ors.

M/S Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Madhavi Bhargav & Ors.