Neutral Citration Number : 2022/DHC/005306

$~28

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO (COMM) 172/2022, CM Nos.55686/2019 & 2871-72/2020

TTK PRESTIGE LTD

......Appellant

Through:

Mr Manish Kumar Mishra and Mr

Shakti Nair, Adv.

HIVELOOP TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD

......Respondent

Through:

Mr Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr

Aditya Gupta, Ms Aishwarya Kane

and Ms Yamini, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the interlocutory order

dated 25.10.2019, whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short “CPC”] was disposed of.

2. At one juncture, the appeal was being prosecuted before the learned

Single Judge of this Court.

2.1

However, this appeal, thereafter, by virtue of an order dated

04.11.2022, was placed before the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Mr Manish Kumar Mishra, who appears on behalf of the appellant,

says that the instant appeal has been rendered inefficacious, in view of the

summary judgment dated 01.12.2021 rendered by the Trial Court, in respect

Digitally Signed By:TARUN

RANA

Signing Date:05.12.2022

15:18:45

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citration Number : 2022/DHC/005306

of a part of the claim.

3.1

Therefore, Mr Mishra says that this appeal is not pressed any further.

4. On the other hand, Mr Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel, who

appears on behalf of the respondent, says that the cross-objections would

have to be dealt with.

5. During the course of the arguments, Mr Rao, on instructions, has

indicated that the cross-objections can be disposed of, in terms of the

directions contained in the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the learned

Single Judge, while the appeal was being dealt with by him.

6. Mr Mishra says, that pending trial, the directions contained therein

can operate, albeit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the

appellant.

7. Besides the directions contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order

dated 24.01.2020, Mr Rao says that the respondent is also aggrieved by the

observations made in the impugned order which, broadly, holds that the

respondent is more than an intermediary.

8. According to Mr Rao, the respondent is only an intermediary in law,

as recognized under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore,

these observations, contained in the impugned order, would hurt the

respondent’s interests, when the matter is finally taken up by the Trial Court

for adjudication, with regard to the remaining claims.

9. In our view, these observations cannot come in the way of the

respondent, as the aspect as to whether the respondent was purely acting as

an intermediary, or as contended was carrying on activities which went

beyond theremit of an intermediary, would have to be established as a fact,

in the trial. The actual position will emerge, once evidence is led by the

Digitally Signed By:TARUN

RANA

Signing Date:05.12.2022

15:18:45

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citration Number : 2022/DHC/005306

parties, as per the onus placed on them.

10. With the aforesaid observations, both the appeal and the cross-

objections are disposed of.

11. Consequently, pending applications shall stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

NOVEMBER 18, 2022

aj

Digitally Signed By:TARUN

RANA

Signing Date:05.12.2022

15:18:45

Signature Not Verified