Star Sports Inida Pvt Ltd vs Jagjit Singh Kohli & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7058 Del

$~45*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 349/2014
      STAR SPORTS INIDA PVT LTD                  ..... Plaintiff
                     Through : Ms. Sneha Jain, Advocate

                    versus
     JAGJIT SINGH KOHLI & ORS.                   ..... Defendants
                    Through : Mr. Diggaj Pathak, Advocate
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                    ORDER

% 17.09.2015 IA No.18433/2015 (by the plaintiff u/O XXIII R-1 r/w Sec.151 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating

inter alia that the original plaintiff Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd. has been

amalgamated with Star India Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of an order dated

22.8.2014 passed by the Company Judge, Bombay High Court and the

said amalgamation has come into effect from 21.11.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that due to the aforesaid

reasons, she seeks leave to withdraw the present suit.

3. Counsel for the defendant states that he has no objection to the

present application being allowed.

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the suit is dismissed

as withdrawn.

5. The date already fixed in the suit, i.e., 9.10.2015 stands

cancelled.

IA No.19593/2015 (by D-5 u/Sec. 151 CPC for desealing its premises)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant

No.5/company stating inter alia that an ad interim ex parte order

dated 5.2.2014 was passed in the present suit, whereunder several

Local Commissioners had been appointed in six different cities,

including in Delhi. In the course of executing the commission in

respect of an associate of the defendant No.5, the Local Commissioner

had switched off all the equipments and sealed the gate of the

transmission room as has been stated by her in the report dated

13.2.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.5 states that now that the

plaintiff has withdrawn its suit, an order for de-sealing the said room

may be passed.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff states that she has no objection to the

said request.

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and defendant No.5 is

granted liberty to de-seal the room situated in premises No.D-61, Ajay

Enclave, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi.

5. The application is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2015/sk