Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft Vs Sipsnap Soda LLP & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft Vs Sipsnap Soda LLP & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Correction of the order dated 29.01.2026 by Corrigendum to include defendant no.2; decree sheet to be drawn up qua defendant no.2 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026; suit qua defendant no.2 disposed of in the same terms; refund of Court Fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act to Mr. Raghuveer Singh Rathore, Power of Attorney holder/Authorised Representative of the plaintiff, on completion of formalities as per rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.01.2026 should be corrected to record the settlement arrived at with defendant no.2 under the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026, and the suit qua defendant no.2 disposed of accordingly. +1 more

Court's answer

Necessary corrections in paras 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the order dated 29.01.2026 shall be carried so as to mean and include defendant no.2.

Ratio / Principle

A Corrigendum shall be issued and a decree sheet drawn up qua defendant no.2 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026.

Key takeaways

The suit qua defendant no.2 stands disposed of in the same terms as the suit qua defendant no.1.ratio¶¶13
The plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court Fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, to be released to Mr. Raghuveer Singh Rathore, the Power of Attorney holder/Authorised Representative of the plaintiff, on completion of all formalities as per the rules.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Tushar Rao Gedela, J.), CS(COMM) 452/2025, Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v. Sipsnap Soda LLP & Ors., order dated 23.03.2026 on I.A. 7550/2026 (S.151 CPC): Allowing the plaintiff's application, the Court directed that the inadvertent omission in its order dated 29.01.2026 — which had decreed the suit qua defendant no.1 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026 but failed to record the settlement also arrived at with defendant no.2 — be remedied by carrying corrections in paras 3, 4, 5 & 6 of that order, issuing a Corrigendum, drawing up a decree sheet qua defendant no.2, and disposing of the suit qua defendant no.2 in the same terms. The plaintiff was held entitled to refund of Court Fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, releasable to its Power of Attorney holder/Authorised Representative, Mr. Raghuveer Singh Rathore, on completion of formalities as per the rules. The suit stands disposed of.

$~25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CS(COMM) 452/2025, I.A. 11858/2025 & I.A. 22511/2025

HELL ENERGY MAGYARORSZAG KFT .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Livya P. Lalu, Mr. Vikrant Rana and Ms. Lucy Rana, Advocates.

versus

SIPSNAP SODA LLP & ORS. ....Defendants Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 23.03.2026

I.A. 7550/2026 (Under Section 151, CPC)

Ms. Livya, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that apparently by inadvertence, an error has crept in the order dated 29.01.2026 whereby the suit qua defendant no.1 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026 has been decreed, to the extent that the settlement talks was also arrived at with defendant no.2, however, the same has not been recorded. 2. In view of the aforesaid statement, the necessary corrections in paras 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the order dated 29.01.2026 to mean and include defendant no.2, shall be carried.

A Corrigendum be issued to that extent and it may be noted that a decree sheet be drawn up qua defendant no.2 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 05.01.2026, and the suit qua defendant no.2 also stands disposed of in the same terms.

So far as the issue of refund of Court Fees in the name of the constituted Attorney of the plaintiff is concerned, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that an appropriate application has already been filed. The aforesaid

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 27/03/2026 at 12:09:28

Power of Attorney is also annexed alongwith the present application. The details of the authorised representative who seeks refund of Court Fees alongwith bank details has been enumerated in para 5 of the application, which is extracted hereunder:

“5. That in view of the above stated facts and circumstances the Apostilled Power of Attorney is placed on record along with the present suit as Document 1 from Page No. 23 to 30, and by virtue of the said document the undersigned Authorized Representative is authorised to receive money on behalf of Plaintiff however, the said document does not contain the bank account details of the Authorized Representative. That for ease of this Hon’ble Court the bank account details of the Authorized Representative i.e., Mr. Raghuveer Singh Rathore is reproduced herein for this Hon’ble Court’s ready reference:

Account Name: Raghuveer Singh Rathore Bank Name: ICICI Bank Account No.: 002901006126 IFS Code: ICIC00000029 Branch: GK-I, New Delhi Type: Saving Account”

The application is allowed in view of the above terms.

The plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court Fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, which may be released to Mr. Raghuveer Singh Rathore, who is the Power of Attorney holder/Authorised Representative of the Plaintiff, on completion of all the formalities, as per the rules.

The suit is accordingly disposed of.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

MARCH 23, 2026 kct

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 27/03/2026 at 12:09:28