Plaintiffs and defendant approached the Court for a consent decree based on a settlement. The Court found the settlement lawful, allowed the application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and refused refund of court fees given the long pendency of the suit.
Suit decreed in terms of settlement; application allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
SUNIL MITTAL & ANR .....Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Apurva Bhutani, Mr. Naqeeb Nawab, Mr. Ashutosh Ranga, Ms. Sejal Tayal and Ms. Neeharika Chauhan, Advs. versus M/S DARZI ON CALL .....Defendant Through: Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
I.A. 32842/2024 (u/Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
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 19/07/2024 at 15:02:12
lawful. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
CS(COMM) 1381/2016
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JULY 10, 2024/rr
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 19/07/2024 at 15:02:12
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SAURABH BANERJEE
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
