Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

16th Government Law College International Law Summit 2026

About Government Law College, Mumbai Government Law College, Mumbai, was established in 1855. It stands as Asia’s oldest and one of India’s most distinguished...
HomeHigh CourtDelhi High Court - OrdersAnamika Prakashan vs Vani Prakashan & Anr on 21 January, 2025

Anamika Prakashan vs Vani Prakashan & Anr on 21 January, 2025

Delhi High Court – Orders

Anamika Prakashan vs Vani Prakashan & Anr on 21 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Palli

Bench: Rekha Palli

                                          $~12
                                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                          +    FAO (COMM) 229/2024, CM APPL. 69640/2024-Stay
                                               ANAMIKA PRAKASHAN                                .....Appellant
                                                             Through: Ms. Anshu, Mr. Vipul Saluja and
                                                                        Ms.Neha Drall, Advocates.
                                                             versus
                                               VANI PRAKASHAN & ANR.                        .....Respondents
                                                             Through: Mr. Ritwik Parikh, Advocate.
                                               CORAM:
                                               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
                                                             ORDER

% 21.01.2025

1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure
, 1908 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts
Act, seeks to assail the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned District
Judge Comm-12, Central Delhi in CS (COMM) 1753/2020. Vide the
impugned order, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application
preferred by the appellant/defendant no. 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC
seeking vacation of interim injunction granted way back on 05.12.2020,
which interim injunction was thereafter extended from time to time.

2. On the last date of hearing, after the matter was heard at length,
learned counsel for the appellant was granted time to file additional
documents. Pursuant thereto, the appellant has filed copies of orders passed
by the learned Trial Court. Besides urging that even though the application
for vacation of the interim injunction had been moved after more than 03
years from the date of the injunction order, the learned Trial Court ought to
have appreciated that the order had been obtained by fraud as the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 were acting in collusion. Further by placing reliance on the

This is a digitally signed order.

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 28/01/2025 at 21:19:24
order dated 07.12.2024, he submits that even though the learned Trial Court
was orally informed about the pendency of the present appeal, the learned
Trial Court still proceeded to hear final arguments and has consequently
reserved judgment in the matter. In these circumstances, the appellant has
already moved a transfer petition before this Court seeking transfer of the
suit to some other Presiding Officer, which petition is still pending
consideration. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order dismissing the
appellant’s application be set aside and the interim injunction granted by the
Trial Court be vacated.

3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record, we find that the primary reason for the
learned Trial Court to reject the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4
CPC
was that the same was filed after more than 03 years from the date of
the passing of the interim injunction order and that too without the appellant
having filed any reply to the injunction application filed by the
respondent/plaintiff. Once the appellant does not deny that the vacation of
interim orders was being sought after more than 03 years, the learned Trial
Court was in our view justified in declining to entertain the appellant’s
application for vacation of stay at this belated stage. In any event, once the
judgment in the suit itself has already been reserved, there is even otherwise
no reason for us to now vacate the interim order dated 05.12.2020, which
has accrued to the benefit of respondent no. 1/plaintiff for the last four years.

4. We, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal, which is,
accordingly, dismissed along with pending application.

5. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the claims of the respondent no. 1 in the suit or the

This is a digitally signed order.

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 28/01/2025 at 21:19:24
appellant’s defence in respect thereof.

REKHA PALLI, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JANUARY 21, 2025/uk

This is a digitally signed order.

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 28/01/2025 at 21:19:25



Source link