VISHAL GUPTA AND ORS vs RAHUL BANSAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 103/2025, CAV 154/2025, CM APPL. 24986/2025 & CM APPL. 24987/2025 VISHAL GUPTA AND ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Krtin Bhasin and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advs. versus RAHUL BANSAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Mokshita Gautam and Ms. Shreya Jain, Advs. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Ms. Nidhi Pandey, Mr. Lakshya Gupta and Ms. Urvashi Arora, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT(ORAL) % 08.05.2025 1. This appeal assails order dated 5 March 2025, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari1 in CS (Comm) 1173/2024. The appellants before us were the defendants in the said suit and the respondent before us was the plaintiff. 2. The order under challenge disposes of an application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the 1 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT FAO (COMM) 103/2025 Page 1 of 7 KUMAR Signing Date:14.05.2025 15:46:01 Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 as well as the applications by the appellant-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. 3. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the appellant- defendant before the learned Commercial Court, submits that the present appeal is restricted to the impugned order to the extent it decides the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 4. The impugned order suffers, in our considered opinion, from a basic error of law. 5. The learned Commercial Court has injuncted the appellant as well as all others acting on behalf of the appellant from dealing in edible oils/mustard oil