Harshal Vikrambhai Patel & ANR. v. Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited & ORS.
$~1-3(SB) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 95/2023, CM APPL.
24320/2023 (Direction), CM APPL. 42476/2023 HARSHAL VIKRAMBHAI PATEL & ANR. ..... Appellants Vasu Singh, Advs.
versus LIMITED & ORS.
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. for All India Gaming Federation.
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 96/2023, CM APPL. 24328/2023 (Interim Injunction), CM APPL. 24331/2023, CM APPL. 42599/2023 (Intervention), CM APPL. 47642/2023 (Intervention), CM APPL. 53546/2023 (Addl. Document) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD.
AND ANR.
..... Appellants Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Shwetashree Majumdar, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Prithvi Singh and Mr.
Rigved Prasad, Advs.
Versus
LIMITED AND OTHERS Vasu Singh, Advs. for R-3 and R-4.
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Ravi Goyal, Mr. Akash Deep Gupta and Mr. Suryansh Gaur, Advs.
for Intervenor- Fancraze.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 97/2023, CM APPL.
24347/2023 (Direction), CM APPL. 42602/2023 (Intervention) MOHAMMED SIRAJ AND ANR.
..... Appellants Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Manini Roy, Ms. Shivani Bhushan and Ms. Diksha Tyagi, Advs.
Versus
LIMITED AND OTHERS Vasu Singh, Advs. for R-4 and R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
O R D E R
% 15.04.2024 1.
We had in our order of 01 April 2024 taken note of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
statement made by Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, and who had stated that the said respondent had discontinued and closed all games, features and marketplace services connected with the Striker Platform. 2.
Viewed in that backdrop, we had expressed our prima facie opinion that the appeal, for all practical purposes, had been rendered infructuous.
3.
Mr. Kaul, learned senior counsel who has appeared today in support of the FAO(OS) (COMM) 96/2023, however contends that although such a statement has been made by the second respondent, respondent no.1 had not made any submission on identical lines. Mr. Kaul also sought to underline the importance of some of the questions which have come to be decided by the impugned judgment and the far reaching ramifications that it may have on other like matters. 4.
We are however of the opinion that since the question of grant or refusal of injunction, and which forms the core of the appeal before us itself no longer survives there would be no justification for us to consider the questions of law which are raised in a vacuum. The appeals are clearly rendered infructuous and would merit being disposed of in light of the change in circumstances. 5.
We also bear in consideration that the judgment which was impugned before us was one which was made in the context of an application referable to Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and would, as is well settled, in any case neither operate as res judicata nor constitute a precedent. 6.
All that we need observe is that all rights and contentions of respective parties including those who had sought intervention in these proceedings are kept open. We also preserve the right of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
appellants to seek revival of its challenge in case the second respondent were to relaunch the Striker Platform. 7.
We also take on board the statement made by Mr. Sibal that in case the second respondent decides to relaunch the platform, it will accord a notice of at least two weeks to the appellants. YASHWANT VARMA, J DHARMESH SHARMA, J APRIL 15, 2024 neha The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.