Dismissed¶19

Yuvarglo Luxury Retail Private Limited v. Dlf Emporio Limited

Delhi HC19 Mar 2025CS(COMM)/59/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC; suit rejected and dismissed for wilful default in deposit of Court fees; Court fees non-deposit; extension of time denied after over 18 months; undertaking vide order dated 24.10.2024; two weeks expired 07.11.2024; amendment of plaint; fresh valuation of reliefs; pending applications disposed; fresh suit permitted; plaintiff deliberating reliefs against defendant; CS(COMM) 59/2024; Delhi High Court; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora; 19.03.2025; Yuvarglo Luxury Retail Private Limited; DLF Emporio Limited.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the plaintiff for its wilful default in deposit of the Court fees. ¶14

Yuvarglo Luxury Retail Private Limited Vs Dlf Emporio Limited — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 59/2024 & I.A. 1475/2024 I.A. 1477-1478/2024

¶4

YUVARGLO LUXURY RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

.....Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, Mr. Nikhil Kohli and Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

DLF EMPORIO LIMITED .....Defendant Through: Ms. Meghna Mishra and Ms. Yashodhara Gupta, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 19.03.2025

¶12

Learned counsel for the defendant states that the plaintiff has failed to deposit the Court fees as undertaken vide order dated 24.10.2024.

¶13

Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the Court fees could not be deposited as the plaintiff is considering and deliberating over the reliefs it seeks against the defendant; and this may require amendment of the plaint as well as fresh valuation of the reliefs.

¶14

This Court is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the plaintiff, for this wilfull default in deposit of the Court fees.

¶15

The suit was filed on 10.10.2023 and an application for seeking extension of time for depositing the Court fees was filed, which was numbered as I.A. 1477/2024. On 24.10.2024, the plaintiff sought two (2)

¶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 22/03/2025 at 17:43:59

¶17

weeks’ time to deposit the Court fees, which was granted and the application stood disposed of. The two (2) weeks expired on 07.11.2024. The plaintiff willfully failed to deposit the Court fees within the time granted. The plaintiff has been granted sufficient time of over 18 months in this suit and there is no justification for further extending this time.

¶18

The suit is accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

¶19

The rights of the plaintiff, if any, against the defendant; in case the plaintiff chooses to file fresh suit shall be decided in accordance with law. 7. The suit is dismissed and the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶20

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶21

MARCH 19, 2025/ hp

¶22

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 22/03/2025 at 17:43:59

Yuvarglo Luxury Retail Private Limited v. Dlf Emporio Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvarglo Luxury Retail Private Limited v. Dlf Emporio Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devdarshan Dhoop Industries & Anr. Vs Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Vs Saurabh Sharma (Trading as M/S Rds Chemicals) & Ors.

Apnatime Tech Private Limited and Anr. Vs Anik Dev Nath and Others

M/S Arbro Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/S Maiden Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Mr Kulbhushan Arora (Huf) through Its Karta Trading as Spectica the Optical World Vs Rajeev Vats Proprietor Spectica Opticals

Wd 40 Manufacturing Company Vs H P Enterprises & Ors.

Portronics Digital Private Limited Vs Pranshu Dubey & Ors.

Central Park Estates Private Limited & Ors. Vs Ashoka Developers and Builders Limited & Ors.

Oyo Workspaces India Private Limited Vs Sanspots Finserv Private Limited

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aquarius H20 Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shree Ganesh Furnishing and Ors.

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Rajesh Khandelwal and Anr.

Ramesh Rajpal Vs Rohit Rajpal & Ors.

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited Vs the Advertising Standards Council of India