Dismissed

Shilpi Rajbhar v. Patel Music and Films Propertior & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2024CS(COMM)/318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and pending applications for non-prosecution. The plaintiff failed to file physical documents, replies, and an amended memo of parties despite multiple directions and cost penalties, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff's suit and all pending applications were dismissed for non-prosecution.

Shilpi Rajbhar Vs Patel Music and Films… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 318/2021, I.A. 8022/2021, I.A. 8024/2021, I.A. 8872/2022 & I.A. 8873/2022

¶4

X .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, Advocate (through VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

Y .....Defendant Through: Mr. Romil Pathak, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Aryan Pathak, Advocates for D-1 and D-2.

¶8

Ms. Asavari Jain, and Mr. Sauhard Alung, Advocates for D-3. Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Amee Rana and Mr. Yash Karunakaran, Advs. for D-4. (Mob: 9903807112)

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 02.12.2024

¶12

The present suit has been listed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 27th September, 2024, passed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), wherein, it has been recorded, as follows:

¶13

“The plaintiff has not filed the physical copies of its documents, despite the last opportunity granted on 19.07.2024, when the costs were also imposed. Neither those directions have been complied with by the plaintiff, nor anyone has appeared for it to explain the noncompliances. The previous conduct of the plaintiff is also not above board whereby the suit is not progressing at the desired pace whereby

¶14

CS(COMM) 318/2021 Page 1 of 5

¶15

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 06/12/2024 at 12:45:14

¶16

precious judicial time is being wasted.

¶17

The defendant no. 1 & 2 have though complied with the directions dated 19.07.2024 regarding the filing of the physical copies of their documents as well as the payment of the costs.

¶18

The defendant no. 3 had already filed the physical copies of its documents.

¶19

In view of the non-appearance as well as the non-compliances by the plaintiff, the matter be now placed before the Hon’ble Court on 02.12.2024 for further directions.

¶20

IA No. 16066/2021 (u/o 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of memo of parties)

¶21

The plaintiff has not filed the amended memo of parties as per the directions dated 28.02.2024, though today was the last opportunity for the same. Accordingly its right in respect thereof is forfeited.”

¶22

A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the plaintiff has not filed the physical copies of the documents, despite last opportunity granted to the th plaintiff on 19 July, 2024, when costs were also imposed.

¶23

th 3. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 28 February, 2024, the right of the plaintiff to file replication was closed, since despite the expiry of the stipulated period, replication had not been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

¶24

th 4. Further, vide the same order dated 28 February, 2024, directions were issued to the parties to file physical copies of their respective documents.

¶25

The order dated 28th February, 2024, reads as under:

¶26

“The counsel for the defendant nos. 1 & 2 states that the costs dated 06.12.2023 were deposited on 20.12.2023. He had filed the receipt, vide diary no. 584256/24 today itself. The office noting in respect thereof is however awaited.

¶27

The plaintiff has not filed any replications qua the defendant nos. 1 & 2, despite the expiry of the stipulated period. Hence the rights in respect thereof are closed. The pleadings in respect of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 are hence complete.

¶28

CS(COMM) 318/2021 Page 2 of 5

¶29

¶30

The pleadings the defendant nos. 3 & 4 were already complete. (Refer: order dated 06.12.2023)

¶31

The defence of the defendant no. 5 had already been struck off on 15.03.2023.

¶32

The contesting parties shall now file the physical copies of their respective documents, if not already filed and the joint schedule of the documents.

¶33

List the matter for admission-denial and marking of exhibits on 15.05.2024.

¶34

IA No. 8022/2021 (u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC procedure for stay)

¶35

The plaintiff has not filed any rejoinders to the replies of the defendant nos. 1 to 4. Its rights in respect thereof are thus closed.

¶36

IA No. 8024/2021 (By plaintiff seeking Interrogatories u/o 11 Rule 2 As amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division Act r/w Section 151 CPC)

¶37

The plaintiff has not filed any rejoinders to the replies of the defendant nos. 1 & 2. Its rights in respect thereof are thus closed.

¶38

IA No. 16066/2021 (u/o 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 141 & 151 CPC for amendment of memo of parties)

¶39

The plaintiff is yet to file the amended memo of parties as per order dated 06.12.2023. That be filed before the next hearing, either by the plaintiff or the defendant no. 3 or the defendant no. 4, which are the parties effected in respect thereof.

¶40

IA No. 8872/2022 (By D-1 & 2 u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint) & 8873/2022 (By D-1 & 2 u/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC)

¶41

The plaintiff has not filed the replies till date. Its rights in respect thereof are hence closed.”

¶42

Though, the physical copies of the documents has been filed by the defendants, however, the physical copies of the documents, as directed to be th filed vide order dated 28 February, 2024, has still not been filed by the plaintiff.

¶43

Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the order dated 31st May, 2022, wherein, notice was issued on the applications filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2.

¶44

CS(COMM) 318/2021 Page 3 of 5

¶45

¶46

It is submitted that the reply to the said applications has still not been filed, despite time of more than two years. The order dated 31^st May, 2022, reads as under:

¶47

“1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶48

I.As.8872/2022 (u/O VII Rule 11 CPC) & 8873/2022 (interim stay)

¶49

2. These are two fresh applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

¶50

3. None has appeared for the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

¶51

4. Mr. Aditya Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for Google LLC submits that in terms of the order dated 12th July, 2021, ‘Bihar Bachao’ YouTube channel has been taken down.

¶52

5. Issue notice in the applications.

¶53

6. Let replies to the applications be filed by the Plaintiff within six weeks.

¶54

7. List before the Joint Registrar on 18th July, 2022, the date already fixed. After completion of the pleadings, the matter shall be listed before the Court.”

¶55

Mr. Rakesh Chander Agrawal, appears on behalf of the plaintiff and submits that he has not been able to obtain instructions from his client. He submits that he has tried to contact his client on a number of occasions. However, her mobile phone is switched off.

¶56

Thus, he submits that in the absence of any instructions from his client, he cannot make any statement.

¶57

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the present suit.

¶58

The present suit has not proceeded any further and even admission/denial of documents, is yet to take place.

¶59

The plaintiff has neither filed any replies to the application since the year 2022, nor has filed the physical documents, as directed vide order dated 28^th February, 2024.

¶60

CS(COMM) 318/2021 Page 4 of 5

¶61

¶62

Further, this Court also notes that vide order dated 28^th February, 2024, directions had been issued to the plaintiff to file amended memo of parties. However, even the same has not been done.

¶63

In view thereof, it is evident that the plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the present suit, any further.

¶64

Accordingly, the present suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, along with the pending applications.

¶65

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶66

DECEMBER 2, 2024 ak

¶67

CS(COMM) 318/2021 Page 5 of 5

¶68

Shilpi Rajbhar v. Patel Music and Films Propertior & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpi Rajbhar v. Patel Music and Films Propertior & 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

Unimrkt Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs Empirico Research Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Parshant Zippers Vs M/S Omega Zippers

Countrywide Promoters Private Limited Vs Navraj Infratech Private Limited

M/S Allied Blenders & Distilers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Venkateshwara Distilleries & Anr.

Sh Puneet Kumar Vs Ms Bansal Credits Limited

Cipla Health Limited Vs Syndicate Pharma & Anr.

Aura Synergy India Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S New Age False Ceiling Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs

M/S Laboratoire Garnier & Cie Vs Pradeep Bhatia & Ors.

Raja Bhandari Vs Naman Arora and Sandeep Garg and Anr.

Countrywide Promoters Private Limited Vs Navraj Infratech Private Limited

M/S Allied Blenders & Distilers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Venkateshwara Distilleries & Anr.

D T Media and Entertainment Private Limited Vs Premchand Palety

Puma Se Vs MD Faizan Rashid Owner/ Proprietor of Shoe Lounge and Anr.

Mankind Pharma Limited Vs Humankind Health and Hygiene Private Limited & Ors.