Dismissed

Robin Raina v. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2026CS(OS)/85/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a suit connected with video-conferencing proceedings from the United States. The withdrawal was processed based on counsel instructions and identification, operating under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(a) CPC with liberty for fresh cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on a fresh cause of action not barred by limitation.

Robin Raina Vs Bennett Coleman and Company… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~78

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 85/2026, I.A. 2484/2026, I.A. 2485/2026, I.A. 2486/2026, I.A. 2487/2026, I.A. 6624/2026, I.A. 6625/2026 ROBIN RAINA .....Plaintiff

¶4

Through: Ms. Ana Upadhyay and Mr. Shubhansh Patel, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Sahil, Advocate for D-2 Mr. Mukul Kochhar and Mr. Ritvik Jha, Advocates for 5 & 6 Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Advocate for D-7 Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Sethi, Mr. Anant Nigam, Mr. Raghav Luthra, Mr. Eish Kesarwani and Mr. Parth Gautam, Advocates for D-8,9 &10

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R % 18.03.2026

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that she has instructions from the Plaintiff to withdraw the present Suit.

¶11

It is stated that the Plaintiff has joined the Court proceedings through video-conferencing from the United States of America.

¶12

Ms. Ana Upadhyay (Enrollment No: D/3478/2019), learned Counsel

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 24/03/2026 at 13:06:04

¶15

for the Plaintiff identifies the Plaintiff, who is appearing through videoconferencing.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff on instructions from the Plaintiff states that the Suit is being withdrawn without any coercion. Noting the said statement and on the basis of the identification by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(a) of the CPC, with liberty to file a fresh Suit on a fresh cause of action, which is not barred by limitation.

¶17

In view of the above, the Suit is disposed of as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶19

MARCH 18, 2026 Prateek

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 24/03/2026 at 13:06:04

Robin Raina v. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Raina v. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amritpal Singh Chatha Vs Swaran Singh Chatha & Ors.

Neelima Chimalwar & Anr. Vs Shubhra Khanna & Anr.

Sarwan Khandelwal & Ors. Vs Govind Prasad Khandelwal & Ors.

Iqbal Kumar Katarmal Vs Smt. Shashi Katarmal & Ors.

Himadri Shekhar Tyagi Vs State, Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Sanjeev Bansal & Anr. Vs Genesis Finance Co. Ltd.

Smt Chander Kanta Bharal and Anr. Vs Smt Suman Bharal and Ors.

Sh. Anees Jeelani & Ors. Vs Sh. Harish Arora & Ors.

Rk Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Tata Capital Limited Vs Pr Sales Agency and Anr.

Rk Associates and Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Shree Gandhi Ashram Vs Shri Anil Sankhwal & Anr.

Pawan Saini Vs Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd.

Mukesh Jain Vs Rajesh Kumar Jain