The High Court of Delhi, within the context of related appeals disposed of as infructuous due to suit withdrawal, allowed the plaintiff's prayer to withdraw the instant civil suit, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.
Liberty to withdraw the instant civil suit granted; suit dismissed as withdrawn.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.
$~O-4
ASIAN HOTELS NORTH LTD .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Ms. Ekssha Kashyap, Dr. Rajeshwar Singh and Ms. Molly Agarwal
versus
YES BANK LTD & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Mr. Nihaad Dewan and Mr. Jeezan Riyaz, Advs for D-1 and 5.
Mr. Nishant Awana, Ms. Rini Sharma and Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advs with Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Chief Manager of Bank of Maharashtra for D-6.
Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv with Mr. Madhur Dhingra, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Manav Goyal, Ms. Ritika Gusain and Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal and Ms. Jahnvi Gupta, Advs for Exclusive Capital Ltd.
Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal and Ms. Lisa Sankrit, Advs for D-9.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
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 21/04/2025 at 11:59:27
O R D E R
% 08.04.2025
FAO (OS) (COMM) 282/2024
1. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that in terms of a Compromise Settlement Sanction dated 24.01.2025, the respondent no. 1 has paid the Entire One-Time Settlement amount to the appellant. He submits that in terms of the settlement, nothing further survives in this appeal and that he shall be withdrawing the suit that is pending before the learned Single Judge.
2. As the appellant is withdrawing the Suit itself, nothing further survives in this appeal. Needless to state, once the suit has been withdrawn, any interim/interlocutory order that has been passed in the Suit, cannot survive or affect the rights of the parties to the Suit or others.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, in case the respondent no. 1 does not withdraw the Suit, it shall be open to the appellant to revive the present appeal.”
FAO (OS) (COMM) 9/2025
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 3178/2022 in CS (COMM) No. 128/2022, titled Asian Hotels North Ltd. v. Yes Bank Ltd. & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘suit’), whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the said application filed by VSJ Investment Pvt. Ltd., respondent no. 1 herein, under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), permitted VSJ Investment Pvt. LTD. to be substituted in place of the appellant herein as the defendant no. 9 in the said Suit.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, who is the plaintiff in the above-captioned suit, submits that in view of the Compromise Settlement Sanction dated 24.01.2025 between the respondent no. 4 and the Bank of Maharashtra, the respondent no. 4 has paid the entire One Time Settlement amount and shall be unconditionally withdrawing the suit pending before the learned Single Judge.
3. As the appellant is withdrawing the Suit itself, nothing further survives in this appeal. Needless to state, once the suit has been withdrawn, any
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 21/04/2025 at 11:59:27
interim/interlocutory order that has been passed in the Suit, cannot survive or affect the rights of the parties to the Suit or others
4. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, in case the respondent no. 4 does not withdraw the Suit, it shall be open to the appellant to revive the present appeal. We further make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to agitate its individual rights in its individual separate proceedings”
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 8, 2025 aks/sp
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 21/04/2025 at 11:59:27
Purushindra Kumar Kaurav
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
