SHASMITH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 111/2024, CM APPL. 18301/2025 & CM APPL. 18302/2025 SHASMITH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman and Mr. M.Shaz Khan, Advs. versus MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raunaq Kamath and Mr. Siddharth Varshney, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 28.03.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. CM APPL. 18301/2025 1. This application seeks stay of proceedings pending before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)1 in CS (Comm) 555/2022. 2. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Commercial Court in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR FAO (COMM) 111/2024 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:01.04.2025 19:06:45 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082. It appears that the respondent has, during the pendency of this appeal, moved an application before the learned Commercial Court under Order XIII-A of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2018, seeking summary judgment. 3. It is trite that opinions expressed in interlocutory applications are not binding when the suit is taken up, or even when the application under Order XIII-A is taken up. 4. As such, we do not see any justification for staying proceedings in the suit merely because the present appeal under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC is pending before us. 5. The only contention of Mr. Khan is that, if the learned Commercial Court allows the application under Order XIII-A and decrees the suit summarily, this appeal would become infructuous. 6. In the first place, we cannot predict the decision of the learned Commercial Court in t