DEEPAK PRANJIVANDAS SHAH VS JAYLAXMI INDUSTRIES

$~5

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CS(COMM) 1395/2016 & CC(COMM) No.13/2017

DEEPAK PRANJIVANDAS SHAH & ORS                         ..... Plaintiffs

Through:        Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha

and Mr. Ankit Arvind, Advs.

Versus

JAYLAXMI INDUSTRIES & ANR                                           ..... Defendants

Through:        Mr.  Ajay  Amitabh  Suman  and  Mr.

Kapil Kumar Giri, Advs. for D-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

%                                                                                   05.03.2018

IA No.16318/2012 (of plaintiffs u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)

1.                 The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the suit vis-a-vis defendant No.2 United Phosphorous Ltd. has already been decreed on 6^th February, 2013 and insofar as the defendant No.1, who is now the only contesting defendant, is concerned, in another suit, the interim injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the patent has been granted. It is thus stated that there is no need to press for this interim relief in this suit.

2.                 The counsel for the plaintiffs further states that in view of the injunction granted as aforesaid, there is no need to insist upon confirmation of the ex-parte order in this case.

3.                 Accordingly, the ex-parte order dated 5^th September, 2012 is vacated.

4.                 The counsel for the defendant No.1 controverts that there is any interim relief in any other suit.

CS(COMM) 1395/2016                                                                                                                           Page 1 of 2

5.                 However, since the plaintiffs are satisfied with the order dated 3^rd

October, 2016 in CS(OS) No.2616/2012 titled Deepak Pranjivandas Shah & Ors. Vs. Crystal Phosphate Ltd. & Anr. copy of which is handed over in the Court, the need to hear this application is not felt.

6.                 The application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1395/2016

7.                 The counsel for the defendant No.1 states that the plaintiffs are delaying the recording of evidence.

8.                 A perusal of the last order dated 7^th February, 2018 of the Joint Registrar shows that though the plaintiffs sought adjournment but the counsel for the defendant No.1 did not oppose the same; accordingly the Joint Registrar has posted the suit on 10^th & 11^th May, 2018 for evidence of the plaintiffs.

9.                 The defendant No.1, if wanted to, ought to have opposed adjournment and today cannot be heard to contend so.

10.            To be listed after the recording of evidence is completed.

IA No.11762/2016 (of plaintiffs u/O XI R-1(4) CPC)

11.            This application has now become infructuous and is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MARCH 05, 2018

‘bs’..

CS(COMM) 1395/2016                                                                                                                           Page 2 of 2