The suit was dismissed as abated because the plaintiff died and his legal representatives declined to pursue the proceedings, noting the underlying patent had expired.
Suit dismissed as abated; I.A. dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~13
versus
ROHIT KAPUR & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Kashish Sethi, Ms. Sunidhi Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Chandra and Ms. Ritu Khandelwal, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 08.02.2024
I.A. 14813/2023 (Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for substituting the Plaintiff’s LR)
CS(COMM) 765/2017
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 8, 2024/ as
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 13/12/2024 at 15:29:07
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suit should continue after the death of the Plaintiff and the inaction of Legal Representatives?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANDEEP JAIDKA
ROHIT KAPUR & ANR
SANJEEV NARULA
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
