Disposed

S.A.R.E. Public Company Limited through Its Receiver Mr. Augoustinos Papathomas v. Avon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2024CS(COMM)/1179/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint application allowed due to settlement agreement between plaintiff and four defendants. Suit against settled parties disposed of per agreement; suit against remaining defendants dismissed as infructuous. Contempt petition withdrawn. Partial court fee refund permitted.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; suit against D1, D2, D3, D4 disposed of via settlement; suit against other defendants dismissed as infructuous. Contempt petition withdrawn. 50% court fee refunded.

S.A.R.E. Public Company Limited through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 1179/2018

¶4

S.A.R.E. PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS RECEIVER MR. AUGOUSTINOS PAPATHOMAS

¶5

..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Pooja M. Saigal and Mr. Nikhil Sabri, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

AVON INFRACON PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Chopra and Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advs. for D-16 & 21. Mr. Nabik Syam and Mr. Tanmay Arora, Advs. for D-17 and 22. Mr. Vijay Nain and Mr. Manoranjan Sharma, Advs. for D-20.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 08.01.2024

¶11

I.A. 25937/2023 (ORDER XXIII RULE-3)

¶12

Joint application filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendants no. 16, 17, 21 & 22 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

¶13

It is submitted in the application that the matter has been amicably settled between plaintiff and defendants no. 16, 17, 21 & 22 in terms of the settlement agreement dated 12.12.2023. It is further submitted on behalf of the counsel for the plaintiff that in view of this settlement, the suit viz-a-viz the other defendants has become infructuous. Therefore, the plaintiff does not want to pursue his case against all other defendants and viz-a-viz defendants no. 16, 17, 21 & 22, the suit be disposed of in terms of the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2024 at 16:04:10

¶15

settlement agreement. Further, the suit against remaining defendants be dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants no. 16, 17, 21 & 22 endorses the settlement agreement. The parties agree to abide by the terms of the settlement.

¶17

In view of the settlement, the application is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff viz-a-viz defendants no. 16, 17, 21 & 22 is disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement, which may be read as part of the final order.

¶18

The suit of the plaintiff against all other defendants is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

I.A. 25996/2023 (FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONTEMPT PET.)

¶20

Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for withdrawal of the contempt petition.

¶21

It is submitted that in view of the settlement, the plaintiff does not want to pursue the contempt petition.

¶22

The same is permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly disposed of.

¶23

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that because the parties arrived at a settlement and the issues have yet not been framed, the court fee may be directed to be refunded.

¶24

Considering that a settlement is only with four defendants, 50% of the court fee is permitted to be refunded to the plaintiff.

¶25

Next date of hearing i.e. 19.01.2024 stands cancelled.

¶26

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶27

JANUARY 8, 2024/ akc

¶28

S.A.R.E. Public Company Limited through Its Receiver Mr. Augoustinos Papathomas v. Avon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.A.R.E. Public Company Limited through Its Receiver Mr. Augoustinos Papathomas v. Avon Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faqir Chand Vinod Kumar and Co. Vs Himanshu Trading Company

Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gati Ltd.

Khandelwal Edible Oils Limited Vs Landsmill Agro Private Limited

Shri Ajay Kalra Vs Delhi Developement Authority

C.K Enterprises Vs Mr. Sunny & Anr.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Ors. Vs Tushar Fulare

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Eris Lifesciences Ltd.

Enagic Hk Co. Ltd. Vs Alpinestar Water Innovation Pvt. Ltd.

Geeta Tandon Vs Dr Sunil Gomber & Ors.

Om Prakash Arora Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Shree Hospital Equipments through Its Proprietor Mr. Dhanaji Bhatale Alias Dhananjay Bhatale Vs Action Construction Equipment Limited

Seema Chibber & Another Vs State of (Gnct of) Delhi & Others

Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina Vs Muller Martini India Pvt. Ltd.

Muskan Cge Coop.Gruop Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Civilcon Engineers