Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar Jain & Ors vs Vistra Itcl (India) Limited & Ors on 1 July, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 01st July, 2019
+ FAO(OS)(COMM) 140/2019
LALIT KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Appellant
Through Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Rohtagi and
Mr. Raghavendra Bajaj, Advocates,
versus
VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr.
Hardeep Sachdeva, Mr. Kamal
Shankar, Mr. Parag Maint, Mr.
Abhimayu Chopra, Mr. Priyank Ladio
and Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal arises out of an order dated 28.05.2019 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed along with the
suit by the respondents no.1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs in the suit). The
appellants appeared through Senior Counsels in the matter after going
through the list. The learned Single Judge has passed a detailed interim
order, which has led to the filing of the present appeal.
2. We may notice that this appeal was listed before a Vacation Bench on
03.06.2019 and thereafter on 07.06.2019, 12.06.2019, 26.06.2019 and
28.06.2019. On two dates, i.e. 07.06.2019, when the matter was listed
on account of correction of typographical error and on 12.06.2019 when
another application was filed.
3. Dr. Singhvi, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior
Counsels appearing for the appellants submit that the learned Single
Judge was completely mis-led into passing the interim order. It is
contended that firstly, Courts at Delhi would have no jurisdiction in the
matter as the suit property is situated in Pune and Courts in Pune would
have jurisdiction in the matter. Secondly, the learned Senior Counsels
contend that the present suit would not be maintainable as the
appellants herein have already instituted a suit prior in point of time
with respect to an identical subject matter and almost identical prayers
and relevant parties have already been arrayed in the aforesaid matter.
It has also been contended that the learned Single Judge was mis-led
and resultantly the order was passed which has extreme and drastic
consequences on the appellants, including appellant no.3, which is only
a real estate company and in view of the interim order passed, it cannot
perform its obligations arising out of the prior transactions with various
companies/buyers, who have no role or connect with the subject matter
of the suit and also the effect of the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge would be such that the appellants cannot even pay their
Income Tax.
4. Mr. Puri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the Courts at Delhi alone would have jurisdiction. He further
submits that during vacations, time was granted to file written
statements which were filed by the appellants and he would file
replication within two days.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the parties
and considered their rival submissions.
6. Reading of the impugned order would show that although the appellants
were present, but they were not served with an advance copy of the
plaint. Although the learned Single Judge has noticed some of the
objections, but we are of the view that the matter should be decided by
the learned Single Judge at an early date taking into consideration all
the grounds which have been raised in this appeal and on the basis of
the written statements and documents which have been filed by the
parties.
7. It is agreed that both the parties will not seek an adjournment before the
learned Single Judge when the matter would be listed before the learned
Single Judge on Thursday, i.e. 04.07.2019. We have no hesitation in
saying that the learned Single Judge would take up the application on
the said date and decide the same expeditiously after granting
opportunity of hearing to the parties on the basis of the pleadings and
documents. We are conscious of the fact that when the matter was
listed on the first date of hearing, the learned Single Judge did not have
the benefit of the pleadings and documents and neither the appellants
had the benefit of the paper book.
8. Mr. Puri submits that respondents be permitted inspection of the
documents filed by the appellants. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants submits that the original documents stand filed and
copies have been supplied. As prayed, the respondents are permitted to
examine the documents.
9. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
CMs.APPL 28256/2019, 28369/2019 & 28653/2019
10. The applications stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the
appeal.
CM.APPL 28969/2019
11. The application filed by the respondents is dismissed as withdrawn,
leave as prayed is granted to file a fresh application before the learned
Single Judge.
12. Dasti.
G.S. SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
JULY 01, 2019
pst
