M/S Arbro Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/S Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Arbro Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/S Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit CS(COMM) 518/2018 decreed in terms of prayer clauses 27 (i) and (ii) of the plaint on recording of the settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; the settlement application forms part of the decree; remaining reliefs in the plaint not pressed; connected appeal RFA-IPD 8/2022 dismissed as withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether the settlement arrived at between the parties should be recorded and the suit decreed in terms thereof. +1 more

Court's answer

Having examined the terms of the settlement, the court found them lawful, and held that the parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.

Ratio / Principle

The suit was decreed in terms of prayer clauses 27 (i) and (ii) of the plaint, and the settlement application was directed to form part of the decree.

Key takeaways

Counsel for the plaintiff did not press for the remaining reliefs prayed for in the plaint.ratio¶¶27
In terms of the settlement, the appeal RFA-IPD 8/2022 was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant and was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

By order dated 18.03.2025 in CS(COMM) 518/2018 & I.A. 6939/2025 and the connected appeal RFA-IPD 8/2022, the High Court of Delhi (Amit Bansal, J.) dealt with an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recording of settlement between M/S Arbro Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (plaintiff below / respondent in appeal) and M/S Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (defendant below / appellant in appeal). The application was duly signed by the authorized representatives of both sides and supported by their respective affidavits, with the settlement terms set out in paragraph 3 of the application. Finding the terms lawful, the court held the parties bound by them, decreed the suit in terms of prayer clauses 27 (i) and (ii) of the plaint, made the settlement application part of the decree, and noted that counsel for the plaintiff did not press the remaining reliefs prayed for. On the strength of the same settlement, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal RFA-IPD 8/2022, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Decree sheet was directed to be drawn up.

$~23 & 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

23.

- CS(COMM) 518/2018 & I.A. 6939/2025

M/S ARBRO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate.

versus

M/S MAIDEN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. .....Defendant Through: Mr. Inderdeep Singh and Mr. Naresh Singh Advocates.

24.

- RFA-IPD 8/2022

MAIDEN PHARMECEUTICALS .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Inderdeep Singh and Mr. Naresh Singh Advocates.

versus

ARBRO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R % 18.03.2025

CS(COMM) 518/2018 & I.A. 6939/2025 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908)

The present application has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recording of settlement between the parties.

CS(COMM) 518/2018 & connected matter

Page 1 of 2

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 20/03/2025 at 12:35:51

The application has been duly signed by the authorized representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant and is also supported by their respective affidavits.

The terms of the settlement have been mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the application.

I have gone through the terms of the settlement and find the same to be lawful.

Parties shall remain bound by the terms of settlement.

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses 27 (i) and

(ii) of the plaint. The application shall form part of the decree.

Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the remaining reliefs prayed for in the plaint.

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

RFA-IPD 8/2022

In terms of the aforesaid settlement, the appellant seeks to withdraw the present appeal.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MARCH 18, 2025

Vivek/-

CS(COMM) 518/2018 & connected matter

Page 2 of 2

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 20/03/2025 at 12:35:51