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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.