Delhi High Court
The Foundry Visionmongers Ltd vs Gitanjali Sehgal & Anr on 1 July, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 887/2013 & IA No.7863/2013
THE FOUNDRY VISIONMONGERS LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Advocate
versus
GITANJALI SEHGAL & ANR ..... Defendants
Through : Ms. Megha Gurnani, Advocate
for D-2/ Century Communication Limited.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 01.07.2015
I.A. No.12864/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)
1. At the outset, counsel for the defendant No.2 states that the
plaintiff has wrongly described the defendant No.2 in the memo of
parties as "Pixion Studios". She states that Pixion Studios is only the
brand name of Century Communication Limited and the defendant
No.1, who has been described in the memo of parties as the CEO of
the defendant No.2, was not holding any such position and was an
employee of Century Communication Limited and that she had
resigned from the company a few months ago.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the submission
made by learned counsel for the Century Communication Limited, she
may be permitted to give up the relief against the defendant No.1 and
file an amended memo of parties by correctly describing the defendant
No.2 as "Century Communication Limited".
3. Needful shall be done within two days, with an advance copy to
the other side.
4. The present joint compromise application has been filed by the
plaintiff and the defendant/Century Communication Limited stating
inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, they
have arrived at an out of court negotiated settlement, whereunder the
defendant/Century Communication Limited has given a series of
undertakings to the plaintiff, as detailed in para 1 to 6 of the
application and in consideration of the said undertakings, the plaintiff
has agreed to forego its claim for damages, delivery up and rendition
of accounts of profits, as prayed for in paragraph 53 (ii) & (iii) of the
plaint.
5. Though the prayer made in the present application is that a
decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of para 53 (i) &
(iv)of the plaint, counsel for the plaintiff fairly states that in view of
the settlement arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff gives up
the relief of costs of proceedings prayed for in para 53(iv) and states
that a decree may be passed in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, as recorded in the present application and in
terms of para 53(i) of the prayer clause in the plaint.
6. The Court has perused the present application. The same has
been signed by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff and its counsel
as also by the Director of Century Communication Limited and its
counsel. The application is supported by the affidavits of the
signatories to the application. Enclosed with the application is a
certified copy of the extract of the Resolution passed at the meeting of
the Board of Directors of the defendant held on 25.6.2015, authorizing
the signatory to swear the affidavit filed in support of the present
application.
7. As the counsels for the parties jointly state that they have
arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition
and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there
appears no legal impediment in accepting the settlement. The parties
shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
8. The suit is decreed in accordance with the terms and conditions
recorded in the present application, while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
9. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending application.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view
of the fact that the parties have arrived at an out of court settlement
prior to the stage of admission/denial of documents, the plaintiff is
entitled to claim refund of 50% of the court fees in terms of Section
16-A of the Court Fees Act.
11. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the
plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the
plaintiff for refund of 50% of the court fees, as per law.
12. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JULY 01, 2015
sk/rkb
