Dismissed¶7

Ajay Sharma v. Spacebiz Solutions Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2025CM(M)/1588/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Substitution of authorized representative of defendant company; order dated 21.07.2025 of learned Trial Court; plaintiff Ajay Sharma challenges substitution order; written statement filed through Mr. Rinku Anand alleged never validly authorized; Mr. Alok Kaushik appointed new authorized representative; validity of earlier representative's appointment left open for trial; Court finds no requirement of interference; petition dismissed; pending application disposed of; CM(M) 1588/2025; CM APPL. 52236/2025; Delhi High Court; Manoj Jain; 22 August 2025.

What did the court decide?

Viewing the matter thus (i.e., with the validity question having been left open for the trial), this Court finds no requirement of interfering with the impugned order permitting the substitution of the authorized representative. ¶6

Ajay Sharma Vs Spacebiz Solutions Private Limited & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~104

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 22^nd , August, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1588/2025 & CM APPL. 52236/2025 AJAY SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Keshav Kumar Verma with Mr. Kunal Verma, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SPACEBIZ SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and is aggrieved by order dated 21.07.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court has permitted substitution of the name of the authorized representative of the defendant company.

¶12

The defendant Company had come up with the request that their earlier representative had resigned on account of personal reasons and, therefore, one Mr. Alok Kaushik has been appointed authorized representative. It was also apprised that he was fully aware of the facts of the case and it was in the abovesaid backdrop that he was permitted to represent the company and his name was, accordingly, substituted as authorized representative Company.

¶13

Such order is under challenge.

¶14

According to learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, it looks quite obvious that when the written statement was earlier filed, it was filed through one Mr. Rinku Anand, who was never validly authorized and, therefore, the written statement, as such, has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 1588/2025

¶17

¶18

Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 15:24:18

¶19

Fact, however, remains that while permitting such substitution, learned Trial Court has left the abovesaid aspect open while observing that whether the earlier authorized representative had been validly appointed or not would be subject matter of trial which can always be gone into during the trial.

¶20