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

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Fox Mandal and Co. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Bishnoi – Respondent


Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges adj's deposit condition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners argue against the merit of the case. (Para 4 , 6 , 14)
3. discussion on the consulting agreement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's interim stay on deposit order. (Para 30 , 34)

ORDER

1. The petitioner, a reputed firm of lawyers, was sued by the respondent, a lawyer who was working with the petitioner on retainership basis. The respondent preferred a suit as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Leave to defend the suit has been granted by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC, vide order dated 9th June 2022, conditional on the petitioner depositing, with the court, Rs. 58,93,935/-, being the amount claimed by the respondent from the petitioners in the suit. The learned ADJ has also directed release of the said deposited amount to the respondent, on the respondent furnishing of an equivalent bank guarantee.

2. Aggrieved by the direction, of the learned ADJ, to the petitioners, to deposit Rs. 58,93,935/- as a condition for leave to defend the suit instituted by the respondent, the petitioners hav

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top