SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Derco Foods - Respondent
CS(OS) 149 of 2020 & I.A. 4818 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2021




A court may permit withdrawal of a suit if parties reach an amicable settlement, allowing for a request for refund of court fees under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1 and Section 151 - The plaintiffs, market leaders in the tree nut industry, sought a permanent injunction and damages against defendants for defamatory publications. An out-of-court settlement was reached, leading to the plaintiffs' request to withdraw the suit. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Settlement - The court permitted withdrawal of the suit and allowed a request for a refund of court fees as per Section 89 CPC. (Paras 6-10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs operated in the dry fruit market internationally for over 42 years. Disputes between the parties led to defamatory statements published by defendants against the plaintiffs.

Findings of Court:
The application to withdraw the suit and request for court fees was permitted.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the out-of-court settlement and the request for withdrawal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an amicable settlement allows for the withdrawal of the suit, provided it is properly documented and executed by the parties involved.

Result: The suit was dismissed as withdrawn.

Table of Content
1. defamation claims and injunctions (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. out-of-court settlement resolution (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. application approval process (Para 8 , 9)
4. withdrawal of suit (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

IA No. 9019/2021 (u/O XXIII R 1 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

1. The plaintiffs claim to be market leaders in the Tree Nut Industry, specialising in import and sale of dry fruits, especially almonds and engaged in the business for over 42 years, thereby establishing a goodwill and reputation in the industry. Plaintiffs are said to be having an international presence and conduct business in various countries including United States of America, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and they were carrying business with defendant No. 1 herein.

2. According to plaintiffs, during the course of transactions between plaintiffs and defendants some dispute arose and the contract was cancelled, however, defendants on 02.06.2020 published and shared with 1450 entities across the world, defamatory content against the plaintiffs. Another defamatory content was issued by the defendants against the plaintiffs on 22.06.2020.

3. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants from publication of false, misleading and defamatory content pertaining to the plaintiffs and damages on account of the said publication.

4. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that an out of Court settlement has been arrived resolving the controversy between the parties and this is how this application under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Sec. 151 CPC has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the dispute inter se parties stand resolved in terms mentioned in the Settlement Agreement dated 01.06.2021 and in terms thereof, parties shall enter into a stipulated judgment in the proceedings before United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Further submitted that in terms of settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw the present suit.

6. Hence, it is prayed that plaintiffs be permitted to withdraw the present suit. Further prayed that since the settlement falls under the ambit of Section 89 CPC and therefore, the eligible fee be refunded.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs be permitted to withdraw the present suit, while giving liberty to file an application seeking refund of court fees.

8. I have gone through the contents of the application. The application in hand is duly signed by plaintiffs No. 1, 3 & 4 and is also supported with their affidavits and on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 as well.

9. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the present suit, while giving liberty to plaintiffs to file separate application seeking refund of court fees.

10. The application is accordingly disposed of.

CS(OS) 149/2020 & I.A. 4818/2020

11. In view of orders passed in IA No. 9019/2021, plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the present suit.

12. The present suit and pending application are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top