Dismissed

Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Nagar, Sole Proprietor, Sanjay E Rickshaw Parking

Delhi HC19 Dec 2025FAO (COMM)/259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of an interim application seeking return of batteries, on the ground that no similar prayer existed in the suit. Appellant sought liberty to withdraw to move an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to withdraw the appeal and to seek amendment of the suit's prayers under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Nagar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO (COMM) 259/2025

¶4

UPGRID SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr Abhijat Bal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika Tuteja and Mr. Gauraang Rawata, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SANJAY NAGAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR, SANJAY E RICKSHAW PARKING .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harish K Malhotra, Adv. with respondent in person

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

ORDER (ORAL)

19.12.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶13

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26 August 2025, whereby miscellaneous application filed by the plaintiff in CS (Comm) 546/2024 seeking return of batteries which were with the respondent has been rejected on the ground that there is no similar prayer in the main suit.

¶14

2. The learned Commercial Court has therefore held that, in an interim application, a prayer which is beyond the prayers in the main suit cannot be granted.

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:AJITFAO (COMM) 259/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.12.2025 19:41:28

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

3. Mr. Abhijat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks liberty to withdraw this appeal as he submits that the appellant would be instituting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC before the learned Commercial Court to amend the prayers in the suit.

¶19

4. Leave and liberty is granted as aforesaid.

¶20

5. Mr. Abhijat also prays that it be clarified that in deciding the said application, the Court would not be influenced by any observations contained in the impugned order.

¶21

6. Inasmuch as the impugned order has not adjudicated on the appellant’s prayer for a direction to return the batteries to the appellant on merits, it is obvious that such a prayer, if it is permitted to be introduced by way of an amendment, would not be influenced by the observations contained in the order.

¶22

7. The present appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

¶23

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶24

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶25

DECEMBER 19, 2025/ dsn

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:AJITFAO (COMM) 259/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 3.12.2025 19:41:28

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Nagar, Sole Proprietor, Sanjay E Rickshaw Parking

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upgrid Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Nagar, Sole Proprietor, Sanjay E Rickshaw Parking

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wg Cdr Rs Manoj Kumar (Retd) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saregama India Limited Vs Global Music Junction Private Limited & Anr.

Tej Singh No 10135455F Hav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ss 47150F Maj Sneha B Sapkal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Chea P Ajay Singh

Union of India & Ors. Vs 698117 Sgt Surender Singh Rohilla Retd