LPA--334/2019. Case: CONSORTIUM OF WORLDS WINDOW EXIM PVT LTD & ORS Vs. AXIS BANK LTD & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | LPA--334/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | May 22, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 22nd May, 2019
+ LPA 334/2019
CONSORTIUM OF WORLDS WINDOW EXIM PVT LTD & ORS
.....Appellants Through: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Puri, Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Mr. Anant Gautam and Mr. Yashrth Mishra, Advocates
versus
AXIS BANK LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Mr. Vaijayant Paliwal and Ms. Bansal, Advocates for respondentUOI
Mr.Mashmat Nabi, Ms. Farah Naaz and Mr. Syed Mehndi Zaidi, Advocates for respondent No.8
Mr.S.L.Gupta and Mr. Mithilesh Pal, Advocates for respondent No.9
Mr. O.P.Gaggar, Advocate for respondent No.11
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM Appl.22823/2019 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 334/2019
-
This matter has been received on transfer.
-
Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 15th April, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on an application being Appl.5938/2019 filed by the appellants/petitioners by which prayer supply of copies of the documents viz. minutes of the meeting Evaluation Committee and other documents detailed in paragraph the application, has been rejected. Learned Single Judge has noticed that this application has been pressed at the fag end of the arguments.
-
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for submits that some of these documents have been referred to in the affidavit filed by the respondents and even otherwise, these would be necessary at the time of hearing as they would have a direct impact on the final outcome of the matter.
-
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel, have opposed this appeal on the ground the order impugned is not an appealable order. Reference is paragraphs No.114 to 116 in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8, which read as under: -
“114. In the course of the trial, the trial Judge may pass a number of orders whereby some of the various steps to be taken by the parties in prosecution of the suit may be of a routine nature while other orders may cause some inconvenience to one party or the other, e.g., an order refusing an adjournment, an order refusing to summon an additional witness or documents, an order refusing to condone delay in filing documents, after the first date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial