Allowed

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Rajan S. Mathews & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2024CS(OS)/276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order decreed a civil suit based on a settlement agreement filed via a joint application, wherein defendants undertook to withdraw disparaging statements and refrain from future defamation while the plaintiff agreed to drop other civil reliefs.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of settlement; interim order dated 30.05.2018 merged into final decree.

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited Vs Rajan S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 276/2018 & I.A. 7696/2018

¶4

RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Vishnu Sarma, Mr. Aabhas Ksheterpal, Mr. Sanjeevi, Mr. Manan Shishodia, Mr. Bhavuk Aggarwal and Mr. Vappangi Sai Prasad, Advocates along with Mr. Sharad Nigam, AR

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJAN S. MATHEWS & ANR .....Defendants Through: Mr. Syed Jafar Alam, Mr. Akshay Bhatia and Ms. Ankita Kamath, Advocates for D-1 & D-2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶9

% 05.12.2024

¶10

I.A. 47305/2024 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC)

¶11

This is a joint application filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶12

Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the material terms agreed between the parties are set out at paragraph ‘10’ of this application, which reads as under: -

¶13

“(a) The statements made by Defendant No. 1 /Mr. Rajan S. Mathews and Defendant No. 2 / COAI -which are described as disparaging, defamatory or maliciously false in the (i) the civil suit filed before this Hon'ble Court; and (ii) the criminal complaint filed before the Learned Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - will be treated as

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

CS(OS) 276/2018

¶16

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 09/12/2024 at 12:57:08

¶17

unconditionally withdrawn, without requiring any further action on the part of any party;

¶18

(b) In the civil suit filed before this Hon’ble Court; and the criminal complaint filed before the Learned Patiala House Court, New Delhi, the Defendant No. l/ Mr. Rajan S. Mathev and Defendant No. 2 /COAI undertake that they shall refrain themselves from making/using disparaging and defamatory statements, the words/phrases made in the plaint against the Plaintiff like "back door operator", "skullduggery", "deep pockets and monopolistic designs" in the future .

¶19

(c) Subject to the above, the Plaintiff/ RJIL will not seek any of the other reliefs sought in the present civil suit, including the relief of damages;

¶20

(d) The Plaintiff / RJIL will file an application for compounding of the criminal offences alleged against Defendant No. 1 / Mr. Rajan S. Mathews and Defendant No. 2 / COAI, before the Learned Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and seek closure of the proceedings before the Learned Patiala House Court, New Delhi; and

¶21

(e) The parties shall bear their respective costs in connection with these proceedings and the proceedings before the Learned Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.”

¶22

He states that the settlement recorded at para 10 (b) is material for the present suit and prays that the suit may be decreed in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties. He states that plaintiff is not pressing for any other reliefs in the plaint in view of this settlement.

¶23

He states that in addition the plaintiff as well remain bound to have the criminal case compounded as undertaken at paragraph 10(d) of the application.

¶24

Learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 states that defendant nos. 1 and 2 shall remain bound by the undertaking recorded in this application.

¶25

This Court is satisfied that the settlement arrived between the parties

Page 2 of 3

CS(OS) 276/2018

is lawful.

The statement of the plaintiff that he is not pressing any other relief in the suit is also taken on record. The parties are bound down to their statements and undertakings.

¶31

The present suit is, accordingly, decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶32

Pending applications stands disposed of.

¶33

The interim order dated 30.05.2018 shall merge into the final decree passed in terms of paragraph of 10(b) of this application. The registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶34

All future dates stand cancelled.

¶35

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶36

DECEMBER 5, 2024/ rhc/MG

¶37

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

CS(OS) 276/2018

¶40

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Rajan S. Mathews & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Rajan S. Mathews & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Navin Jain & Sons (Huf) a Hindu Undivided Family Vs Mr. Rakesh Jain & Sons (HUF0 a Hindu Undivided Family

Sharma& Asssociates,Contractor.Pvt Ltd. Vs Progressive Construction Ltd. & Anr.

Ajay Narain Vs Aarti Singh & Ors.

Aarti Singh Vs Ajay Narain

Sandeep Singh & Anr. Vs Shashi Sehdeva & Ors.

Smt. Samta Vs Sh. Sudeepak Kumar Rajan and Ors.

Smt. Krishna Kapur Vs Sh. Tarun Kapoor & Ors.

Karan Raj Sharma Vs Neha Pathania

Sh Puneet Kumar Vs Ms Bansal Credits Limited

Rajni Jain & Ors. Vs Mr. Anurodh Jain

Ms. Kavita Gadi Vs Mrs. Adarsh Kapoor & Ors.

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Nepal General Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Reema Mehta Vs Sandeep Uppal

Dubai Plaster Dry Mix Llc Vs Flexmax Technical Services Llc & Anr.