Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Mittal Electronics – Appellant
Versus
Sujata Home Appliances Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the order from a single judge. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions regarding suppression of material facts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial findings on material facts. (Para 5) |
| 4. order to expedite hearing and maintain accounts. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)-- The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 9th September, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge disposing of I.A. No. 1751/2020 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, `CPC') and I.A. No. 4098/2020 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC in CS (Comm) No. 60/2020.
2. After some arguments, learned senior counsel for the appellant- plaintiff states that the appellant would be satisfied in the event, this Court were to direct the learned Single Judge to expedite the disposal of the suit i.e. CS (Comm) No. 60/2020) and also direct the respondents-defendants to maintain accounts with regard to goods manufactured and sold by them bearing the mark SUJATA.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also states that learned Single Judge has erroneously presumed and concluded that ther
Conclusive findings regarding suppression of material facts should not be made in interim proceedings and require a full trial to evaluate evidence comprehensively.
Concealment of material facts and alternative effective remedy for challenging ex parte interim relief orders.
A party seeking discretionary relief must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts; failure to do so may invite sanctions under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
It is bounden duty of court to uphold truth and do justice.
Fraud must involve suppression of a material fact that could affect the outcome of legal proceedings; mere claims of fraud are insufficient to warrant review of a judgment.
Interim injunction refused for material concealment of prior compromise; courts deny equitable relief to unclean hands, no interference absent perversity when actions per settlement cause no prejudic....
A litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands, by concealing material facts, is not entitled to any relief.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
